If You're Not Paranoid About Your Privacy, You're Crazy (theatlantic.com)

Muad'Dave writes: Here's an interesting article at The Atlantic about the prevalence of surveillance and the recent uptick in 'deja-vu' moments where devices seemingly hear your conversations and then attempt to market to you. From the article: "One night the previous summer, I’d driven to meet a friend at an art gallery in Hollywood, my first visit to a gallery in years. The next morning, in my inbox, several spam e-mails urged me to invest in art. That was an easy one to figure out: I’d typed the name of the gallery into Google Maps. Another simple one to trace was the stream of invitations to drug and alcohol rehab centers that I’d been getting ever since I’d consulted an online calendar of Los Angeles–area Alcoholics Anonymous meetings. Since membership in AA is supposed to be confidential, these emails irked me. Their presumptuous, heart-to-heart tone bugged me too. Was I tired of my misery and hopelessness? Hadn’t I caused my loved ones enough pain? Some of these disconcerting prompts were harder to explain. For example, the appearance on my Facebook page, under the heading “People You May Know,” of a California musician whom I’d bumped into six or seven times at AA meetings in a private home. In accordance with AA custom, he had never told me his last name nor inquired about mine. And as far as I knew, we had just one friend in common, a notably solitary older novelist who avoided computers altogether. I did some research in an online technology forum and learned that by entering my number into his smartphone’s address book (compiling phone lists to use in times of trouble is an AA ritual), the musician had probably triggered the program that placed his full name and photo on my page."

Comments

Okay, So Why Should I Be Paranoid?

[Anonymous Coward]

In every example given, initial worst assumptions give way to mundane explanations. What exactly is there to be worried about?

Re:Okay, So Why Should I Be Paranoid?

[bobbied]

What exactly is there to be worried about?

Depends on what you own or are trying to hide... For most of us it's "Not much" and "Not Much" which gives you the answer you seek.

Re:Okay, So Why Should I Be Paranoid?

[fustakrakich]

What exactly is there to be worried about?

*probable cause*

Re:Okay, So Why Should I Be Paranoid?

[phantomfive]

And ask him how much he'd be willing to pay each month to keep his privacy. For most Americans, the answer is "not much."
As for me, I'd rather have the internet as it was before......with less stuff. The good stuff, I'm willing to pay for.

Re:Okay, So Why Should I Be Paranoid?

[WSOGMM]

What exactly is there to be worried about?

The main takeaway, to me at least, is that very personal information of yours is not as personal as you think it is anymore. Do your google searches indicate that you've been diagnosed with an STD? Do they infer that you're a frequent marijuana user? Do your posts reveal that you're paranoid about your lover cheating on you? Do they flag you for an NSA interesting persons list?

Your searches reveal information about your interests, and they are most definitely recorded in order to advertise to you. As we have learned with the OPM, or with Ashley Madison, or with one of the many other thousands of instances of data theft, much of your information is unprotected. It can be used to blackmail you, to out you as a minority or stereotype, and to reveal your (mildly or severely) illegal activities.

You may think that you're a moral person, but most people have character traits that give them shame.

Re:Okay, So Why Should I Be Paranoid?

[Anonymous Coward]

What exactly is there to be worried about?

Depends on what you own or are trying to hide... For most of us it's "Not much" and "Not Much" which gives you the answer you seek.

I have zero to hide from anyone.Yet, I value my privacy very much. Your statement is fail.

Re:Okay, So Why Should I Be Paranoid?

[sumdumass]

Or soiled reputation. What happens when instead of getting help at an AA meeting, you are sponsoring someone you know and become a second line for someone else in the group and all this makes it look like you are the alcoholic when a job does a security and background check before they hire you. Or what about the same and your new girlfriend checks to see what kind of creep you might be and dumps you.

It can be problematic in several ways. If the info is being sold to advertisers, there is nothing stopping it from being sold to the investigation company or even law enforcement (who would likely had otherwise needed a warrant )

Re:Okay, So Why Should I Be Paranoid?

[JMJimmy]

It's not simply about shame. Less than a century ago the world tore itself apart because a single trait was vilified, hunted, and slaughtered. We like to think that we've moved forward and are past such things but they are never far off. Donald Trump has more in common with Hitler than the founding fathers, yet he's the fore runner in the US Republican nomination. All it takes is a failing economy & desperate people to begin the cycle of hate. It might be gays in the US, Muslims in the EU, the poor in Canada, etc. Maybe it doesn't go to the lengths that Hitler did, maybe it only excludes certain classes of people from being able to attain a reasonable life. Alcoholic/Drug user? Excluded from working. Gay? Excluded from society. Criminal? Excluded from both. The biggest thing in immediate danger with the loss of privacy is opportunity. You must conform publicly in every way to the definition of the ideal or face ridicule, ostracization, or limitation. Privacy is liberty. Liberty to explore your boundaries, interests, and desires. Liberty to fix your mistakes, change your mind, & move forward in life without being restrained by your past choices. Without privacy none of that is possible.

Re:Okay, So Why Should I Be Paranoid?

[Anonymous Coward]

in my country, my sexuality is a death sentence. So yes, I have quite a lot to hide.

Re: Okay, So Why Should I Be Paranoid?

[Anonymous Coward]

We shouldn't have to pay anything for privacy. You're not thinking clearly because of how far our society has gone down the road of routine invasion. Privacy used to be normal, and people had to pay to be known, typically for business but also socially - remember classifieds?

Re:Okay, So Why Should I Be Paranoid?

[phantomfive]

It's on Amazon, there's a 10% chance of winning, if you lose, you can still buy it.
Called Zero Bugs and Program Faster, I think it's pretty good.

Re:Okay, So Why Should I Be Paranoid?

[JMJimmy]

I don't see how any of those arguments follow from one another. Ultimately it comes down to forgiveness and personal choice, doesn't it? We must all allow the liberties to OTHERS that we expect for ourselves. I don't see how privacy has anything to do with liberty, it simply removes the ability for those opposed to freedom to hide their oppressive tendencies.

Our history as humans is littered with examples. Women hiding behind male names to express their liberty in books. Irish hiding their ancestry to have the liberty to use services. Jews hiding their religion to avoid being rounded up and shipped to concentration camps.

How do you forgive someone for being Black or Muslim? Can you forgive a convicted child molester who has supposedly paid their debt to society?

Those are extreme examples to be sure but small ones happen every day. An alcoholic passed over for promotion despite 3 decades of sobriety, a teacher fired for taking part in a porno while in college, a politician forced to resign over an internet post taken out of context before they were in political life - all of these things are real events that would not have happened had their privacy been respected. The politician used a pseudonym, the teacher a stage name, the alcoholic attended meetings. All actions that had clear intent to remain anonymous and private under "private in public" doctrine (a foreign concept to Americans but well entrenched in other countries). The liberty to change, experiment, and speak all wrapped up in information that was intended to remain private and limited current/future opportunity for these individuals. Others who look at their situations and are influenced not to exercise their liberty for fear of loosing their opportunities leads to a society that is free in nothing but language.

Also, please don't mistake me. Actions have consequences (like the child molester going to jail), that is without question. Private actions, especially private in public actions, (like participating in a demonstration or shopping at certain stores or internet commenting) are very different and need protection.

Re:Okay, So Why Should I Be Paranoid?

[Jane Q. Public]

It's not simply about shame...

Let's also not forget that in the U.S., it is against the law to track someone who is under 13 years old. But only maybe 1 in 1000 trackers really knows or cares about age. So many trackers in the U.S. are violating the law thousands or even millions of times a day.

And I, for one, object to that. I agree that children should not be tracked. Something must be done.

My own position, and the position EFF has (finally!) adopted is: tracking by opt-in only!

It is the only remaining viable way to protect privacy (and children).

Re:Okay, So Why Should I Be Paranoid?

[ultranova]

And ask him how much he'd be willing to pay each month to keep his privacy. For most Americans, the answer is "not much."

Willing or able? Or does "your privacy or your home" count as a free choice?

Re:Okay, So Why Should I Be Paranoid?

[Curunir_wolf]

Riiiiight... http://www.businessinsider.com... [businessinsider.com]

This is just a bunch of 3rd and 4th -party hearsay that Trump may have had a book of Hitler's speeches. It in no way supports your assertion that "Donald Trump has more in common with Hitler..." at all.

http://www.poynter.org/news/me... [poynter.org]

This, of course, is just more of what I assumed you really meant, which that Trump is a racist and a misogynist, which is simply what the political class (especially on the left, and this guy is very far left) say about Trump. Sure, you can mischaracterize statements from anyone and claim they are racist, it happens all the time, but it's just hyperbole. This guy didn't really even try to demonstrate any commonalities between Trump and Hitler (except, as I pointed out, hair), rather he used Hitler's election to drum up additional hatred for Republicans in his leftist audience. You can find articles doing that all the time. In fact, I can find lots of similar articles using the same rhetoric about Bush W. and even Mitt Romney.

So, poor effort on your part, terrible fail.

Again, I would try it with Sanders if I were you. Compare his career history and trajectory to Hitlers, the campaign promises each made / make, and the groups they vilify during their run for the highest office.

Re:Okay, So Why Should I Be Paranoid?

[phantomfive]

"Privacy in your own home" isn't really at risk here, unless you are talking about "privacy to post on Facebook in my house"

Re:Okay, So Why Should I Be Paranoid?

[Curunir_wolf]

You're not talking about reality. You're talking spin. It's really easy to call anyone a racist - especially with the media consistently misquoting Trump over and over and then having long panel discussion about things he didn't actually say, or ways that they interpret what he said. You've bought all that rhetoric from supporters of the political status quo hook, line and sinker. And people that know the media is deceptive check out what Trump is really saying and he gets more support. Too bad so many people (like you) can't be bothered to do that. Especially when it fits your ideology.

Re: Okay, So Why Should I Be Paranoid?

[Etcetera]

We shouldn't have to pay anything for privacy. You're not thinking clearly because of how far our society has gone down the road of routine invasion. Privacy used to be normal, and people had to pay to be known, typically for business but also socially - remember classifieds?

If privacy was normal, it was due to lack of mass broadcasting and data processing, and the existence of a strong social fabric among those who DID have access to you if they wanted to. (Apartment neighbors, etc.)

Technology ruined the first part. And now everyone's your neighbor on the internet, rendering the second part irrelevant.

Re:Okay, So Why Should I Be Paranoid?

[Curunir_wolf]

the one who singles out the "others" and casts blame on them for a majority of the problems

Actually, this is a good one. You've pegged Bernie's campaign exactly.

Re:Okay, So Why Should I Be Paranoid?

[JMJimmy]

This is just a bunch of 3rd and 4th -party hearsay that Trump may have had a book of Hitler's speeches. It in no way supports your assertion that "Donald Trump has more in common with Hitler..." at all.

No, it's a first party witness (Ivana Trump) making a statement to Vanity Fair. Yes, it was re-reported by Business Insider making that particular article a 3rd party but the original statement is true as far as anyone can know.

This, of course, is just more of what I assumed you really meant, which that Trump is a racist and a misogynist, which is simply what the political class (especially on the left, and this guy is very far left) say about Trump. Sure, you can mischaracterize statements from anyone and claim they are racist, it happens all the time, but it's just hyperbole. This guy didn't really even try to demonstrate any commonalities between Trump and Hitler (except, as I pointed out, hair), rather he used Hitler's election to drum up additional hatred for Republicans in his leftist audience. You can find articles doing that all the time. In fact, I can find lots of similar articles using the same rhetoric about Bush W. and even Mitt Romney.

"Laziness is a trait in the blacks. ... Black guys counting my money! I hate it" - Trump

"China is killing us. They’ve taken so much of our wealth. They’ve taken our jobs. They’ve taken our business, they’ve taken our manufacturing, [audience member screams out “our land”] Our land? The way they’re going they’ll have that pretty soon.Think about it, we have rebuilt China — somebody said to me “that’s a harsh statement” — it’s the greatest theft in the history of the United States." - Trump

"When Mexico sends its people, they’re not sending their best. They’re not sending you. They’re not sending you. They’re sending people that have lots of problems, and they’re bringing those problems with us. They’re bringing drugs. They’re bringing crime. They’re rapists. And some, I assume, are good people." - Trump

Hitler propaganda, bolstered by his "cabal" or not, preyed on such themes as the "lazy" Jews were stealing from "hardworking" German people. The blacks, the Jews, the Bolsheviks were to blame for all of "normal German's" issues. Much like Trump blames the Chinese, the Mexicans, the "Blacks", etc.

I'm not going to convince you but for most people it's plain as day that he uses the language of hate and fear to gain popularity. Win or lose he demonstrates how easily large portions of the population are swayed by the politics of blame and how large that population is.

Re:Okay, So Why Should I Be Paranoid?

[JMJimmy]

Ya, that law was never going to work. You need to be able to track 13 year olds to be able to "not" track them otherwise how would you know if they're 13 or not?

Re:Okay, So Why Should I Be Paranoid?

[ATMAvatar]

The problem is that you never know what things people know about you today will be seen as illegal/immoral tomorrow. For example, few people would expect something as innocent as providing your religion on census forms could lead to your death later, but for millions, it did.

Re:Okay, So Why Should I Be Paranoid?

[JMJimmy]

What exactly is there to be worried about?

Depends on what you own or are trying to hide... For most of us it's "Not much" and "Not Much" which gives you the answer you seek.

The thing you will want to hide is the thing you didn't know you should have kept hidden.

Re: Okay, So Why Should I Be Paranoid?

[Jack Griffin]

Privacy is not a fixed thing. There are shades of privacy...

This is what shits me about privacy legislation, it is too black and white (either private in your home behind the curtains, or it public - hey you're on public property I have the right to record you and publish whatever you are doing to millions of eyes and ears). Actually even private is no longer private apparently.
Where is the granularity? I'd like to see some sort of localised expectation of privacy, eg if I walk down the street in my undies, I don't care if the neighbours see me, but does that give someone the right to put on TV? If I have a picnic in the public park with my mistress, should that be allowed to be put on TV?
It seems that the notion that you are in public doesn't appreciate that public in your local area is not the same as public globally.

Re:Okay, So Why Should I Be Paranoid?

[WaffleMonster]

Let's also not forget that in the U.S., it is against the law to track someone who is under 13 years old. But only maybe 1 in 1000 trackers really knows or cares about age. So many trackers in the U.S. are violating the law thousands or even millions of times a day.

My own position, and the position EFF has (finally!) adopted is: tracking by opt-in only!

What if users were able to configure age bracket within browser and it went out with the request header of every request?

If widely implemented, everyone knows about it the lawyers might be able to make a stronger case failure to check such a header == negligence. Of course the same theory would not be limited to tracking and may ultimately prove to be counterproductive.

Re:Okay, So Why Should I Be Paranoid?

[mrbester]

Having nothing to hide has nothing to do with nothing to fear. Why do you want / need this information? You have no right to it. He gives you this information and you steal everything from him.

Re:Okay, So Why Should I Be Paranoid?

[RyuuzakiTetsuya]

What doesn't have me paranoid though is that I'm open about my cannabis use and so are tons of others. There simply hasn't been a mass roundup of cannabis users from social media.

I'm not worried the NSA or the FBI is out to get me because I think they literally have more important things to worry about.

What I am worried about is anything actually getting flagged? If I get curious about say, how do explosive belts used by terrorists work, does *that* get flagged?

So far, I'm pretty sure the answer is no. The workload already is ridiculously overburdening our spy agencies. Adding flagging or any sort of tracking would only make that worse.

I'm inclined to believe that if we were flagging things, the Tsarnaev brothers would've been caught.

Re:Okay, So Why Should I Be Paranoid?

[JMJimmy]

Let's also not forget that in the U.S., it is against the law to track someone who is under 13 years old. But only maybe 1 in 1000 trackers really knows or cares about age. So many trackers in the U.S. are violating the law thousands or even millions of times a day.

My own position, and the position EFF has (finally!) adopted is: tracking by opt-in only!

What if users were able to configure age bracket within browser and it went out with the request header of every request?

If widely implemented, everyone knows about it the lawyers might be able to make a stronger case failure to check such a header == negligence. Of course the same theory would not be limited to tracking and may ultimately prove to be counterproductive.

Then people who aren't 13 will start using it because they don't want to be tracked either and then the advertising industry will drop support for it just like they did with the 'Do No Track' header.

Re: Okay, So Why Should I Be Paranoid?

[rioki]

If privacy was normal

Unless you lived in a village, where probably everybody know almost everything. Somethings just where not talked about in the open.

Re: Okay, So Why Should I Be Paranoid?

[Scorpiana]

Replying to undo moderation mistake.

Re: Okay, So Why Should I Be Paranoid?

[N1AK]

We shouldn't have to pay anything for privacy.

We shouldn't be so willing, as a species, to sell our privacy in return for services. People know Facebook etc are mining everything they put into the platform, they just don't care enough and would stop using the site if it started charging in return for stopping the mining. You can blame companies like Facebook all you like, but as long as the only businesses that succeed are the ones that don't charge users and instead make money by selling the users (as advertising viewers or data directly) it'll keep happening.

Re:Okay, So Why Should I Be Paranoid?

[Anonymous Coward]

You must conform publicly in every way to the definition of the ideal or face ridicule, ostracization, or limitation. Privacy is liberty. Liberty to explore your boundaries, interests, and desires. Liberty to fix your mistakes, change your mind, & move forward in life without being restrained by your past choices. Without privacy none of that is possible.

Good god man, very well put.

Re:Okay, So Why Should I Be Paranoid?

[Hognoxious]

You're a Dutch heterosexual?

Re: Okay, So Why Should I Be Paranoid?

[TapeCutter]

I'm pushing 60, the idea that human nature was somehow better in the "old days" is called nostalgia, it is wishful thinking with no basis in reality.

Re: Okay, So Why Should I Be Paranoid?

[Dog-Cow]

We shouldn't be so willing, as a species, to sell our privacy in return for services.

What a ridiculous statement. Give one good reason why, as a species, we shouldn't do this. You are free to do as you wish in this regard, but who appointed you as god?

Re: Okay, So Why Should I Be Paranoid?

[TapeCutter]

Not picking on you personally but why are so many people interested in what others do with their privacy? What effect does it have on you if I give it away? I'm not talking about state sponsored spying, I'm talking about people who buy and sell eyeballs. Why do other people give a flying fuck that hearing aid and dental adverts follow me all over the internet?

Re: Okay, So Why Should I Be Paranoid?

[Anonymous Coward]

There's a pretty clear difference between raising up anger against people in power at the top of the system, and attacking the "other" because of inherent "otherness". Bernie is mad about people who have amassed so much wealth and power that they make the rules that govern them. Hitler didn't just want the rich and powerful Jews to suffer for his hatreds, he wanted to kill every single one of them.

Bernie just wants the super rich to pay some fucking taxes and not have the power to override the rest of the people.

Re:Okay, So Why Should I Be Paranoid?

[Bert64]

Well history shows that such a strategy works, after all preying on people's fear and blaming the bogeyman worked for hitler, so why wouldn't it work for trump too?

There is however a huge difference between what someone says in order to get elected, and what they actually do after they have been elected.

Re:Okay, So Why Should I Be Paranoid?

[Bert64]

People older than 13 will set their age to be lower in order to avoid tracking, while those younger than 13 will set their age higher in order to access age restricted content.

Re:Okay, So Why Should I Be Paranoid?

[Bert64]

Facebook at least used to (still does?) require you to claim to be >13 when you sign up, and at the very least it asks for your age so you've effectively already opted in to being tracked at that point. I imagine most other sites also ask for age etc when you sign up, so they have done their due diligence by asking and it's down to the end user if they've lied.

Re:Okay, So Why Should I Be Paranoid?

[jandersen]

The main takeaway, to me at least, is that very personal information of yours is not as personal as you think it is anymore.

That in itself is not so much of a problem - but what happens as a result can be. One thing is being targeted with a flood of inept advertising for things you don't want or need, but much worse is the fact that there are far too many people in the world, who are more than happy to jump to conclusions based on superficial evidence and a lack of understanding. A lot of them are hostile and some are in positions where they can make decisions against you.

Personally, I don't think there is any need to be paranoid, but a healthy dose of skepticism towards new technology is probably a good idea - or to put a more positive spin on it: everybody should have a set of quality standards that new, cool gadgets have to pass. We should always ask questions like "How much control do I have over the information this thing is collecting?", and if the answer is less than '100%', then you should probably not use it.

Re:Okay, So Why Should I Be Paranoid?

[Bert64]

Cannabis use isn't always illegal, and even when it is, its generally considered a very low severity crime that might get you a slap on the wrist... Law enforcement departments are generally underfunded, so rounding up thousands of users to give them a slap on the wrist for cannabis use would be a terribly poor use of their limited resources.

On the other hand, they will keep record of the fact that you are a cannabis user incase that information proves useful in the future... For instance they may suspect you of a far more serious crime but don't have enough evidence to get a search warrant however they do have enough evidence to get a search warrant to look for cannabis and might just happen to discover evidence of other crimes while looking for cannabis in your house.

Re:Okay, So Why Should I Be Paranoid?

[JMJimmy]

How much damage do they cause along the way? How many Kim Davis' are emboldened? How many unknown persons are pushed further out of society? He doesn't have to get elected for any of those things to occur. Simply by being given the attention and people saying "this is ok" is enough to cause problems. Every step down that path makes privacy that much more important (or down the path of 'if you're not with us, you're against us' of the W. Bush era).

Re:Okay, So Why Should I Be Paranoid?

[OolimPhon]

What part of Alcoholics Anonymous did you overlook?

Re: Okay, So Why Should I Be Paranoid?

[internerdj]

When was privacy normal? Coming from an area with a lot of small towns, there has been historically very little privacy and it usually caused a lot of grief for anyone out of "normal." Privacy has never been normal if you choose to participate in a community with any depth, especially not the sort of privacy that you lose by posting to Facebook.

Re:Okay, So Why Should I Be Paranoid?

[fyngyrz]

Guess he'd better keep that information... private... then.

Re: Okay, So Why Should I Be Paranoid?

[Penguinisto]

This, right here.

Before Facebook and PMs, there was the rumor mill. Anyone who has lived in a small rural town grows up instinctively knowing this. Of course everyone publicly scolded the unnamed-but-known-to-all town gossips - but they had all the juicy bits that kept everyone else entertained/titillated/shocked, so it was all passed around on the down-low anyway.

Perversely, you get more privacy in the big city, because there, folks don't give a shit about their neighbors beyond some small circle, and there's too many to keep track of if they did.

Re: Okay, So Why Should I Be Paranoid?

[Ol Olsoc]

Where is the granularity?

I think the line is well crossed when Google Profiles a person as an alcoholic, and provides that information to others.

For certain occupations in certain sectors, that is a instrument of career destruction.

I am fully convinced that we need a two pronged defense against data gone wild.

One of course, is to limit our exposure via the normal blocking programs.

Second, we need programs that regularly send out so much fake data that this tracking is rendered useless.

Re:Okay, So Why Should I Be Paranoid?

[Ol Olsoc]

"Privacy in your own home" isn't really at risk here, unless you are talking about "privacy to post on Facebook in my house"

Actually, it is - and big time.

The provider of this story notes that he was being stalked by Alcoholics anonymous in multiple ways - including FB.

This isn't like kiddie diddlers looking at their porn, or any other nefarious use some folks might have for the web - it's a person who looks at an online calendar of AA, and is now branded as an alcoholic by big data.

That is a decision by big data that would have life changing ramifications for some folks.

Let's take me for example. I am a very spare drinker, perhaps a beer a month.

In my job, you couldn't have your clearance and be an alcoholic - mostly - if you were actively getting treatment/counseling - possibly, but you'd likely be transferred at best.

Soooooo if I was in that guys position, branded as an alcoholic while actually being on the very shallow end of the consumption pool, I would probably end up having to join AA and get other treatment for a problem I don't have in order to keep my job.

Coupled with - I would have to pretend I actually was, because if I told them the truth, I'd be declared as "resisting treatment". That's seriously insane.

This is a screwed up world we live in..

Re: Okay, So Why Should I Be Paranoid?

[JohnFen]

Unless you lived in a village, where probably everybody know almost everything. Somethings just where not talked about in the open.

True, but that's a lot less problematic than companies and the government spying on you.

Re: Okay, So Why Should I Be Paranoid?

[JohnFen]

I'm not talking about state sponsored spying, I'm talking about people who buy and sell eyeballs. Why do other people give a flying fuck that hearing aid and dental adverts follow me all over the internet?

It's not the ads, it's the database. In this day and age, there is little effective difference between state sponsored spying and corporate spying. If you object to one, you must object to the other, because they both largely are doing the exact same thing (buying data from the aggregators).

Re:Okay, So Why Should I Be Paranoid?

[JohnFen]

You may think that you're a moral person, but most people have character traits that give them shame.

Perhaps, but shame and morality are only loosely correlated. Most people who feel ashamed of something about themselves are ashamed because of something society in general says should be shameful. Quite often, this is about issues that are morally neutral.

Personally, there is nothing in my life that I'm so ashamed of that it would be a huge deal if it were widely revealed. But privacy is incredibly important to me nonetheless.

Re:Okay, So Why Should I Be Paranoid?

[JohnFen]

as everyone of us who has a penis knows, when we like something, we will chase it to the ends of the earth and do almost anything to get it.

This may be true for some people, but nowhere near "everyone". Not even the majority, at least not for men older than 25 or so.

Re: Okay, So Why Should I Be Paranoid?

[KGIII]

When was privacy ever normal? In the past you slept in one room with the whole family or, in some cases, an extended family or even a number of families. Everyone you knew, knew you intimately. Sure, there were people on the fringes of society that were not so well known. Hell, lack of privacy was so prevalent that villages were skeptical of outsiders simply because they didn't know them and had assumptions about why you might be traveling.

I don't know where people get this idea that we were somehow a utopia in the past. This is almost always a falsehood. Much of the idyllic past is a myth.

Perhaps you meant the scope? Well, while true, that's because you weren't communicating with people from afar. I am not sure but I suspect we can actually have more privacy today then we've ever had. Of course lots of people give this up (and we can figure out why pretty easily, or make good guesses as to the reasoning).

There is also the method which is new but the results seem more or less the same. I tend to not do much of my own shopping but when I am home and do my shopping in the village the clerks know what I want well enough so that they often have it ready for me and tell me about something that is new that I might be interested in. They've amassed a profile but it's kept in their head and not in a database.

Don't get me wrong... I am a huge fan of privacy. That's because I want things to change. I want it to change because that's not how it has ever been and how it could be in the future.

Re:Okay, So Why Should I Be Paranoid?

[bobbied]

What you don't know about, cannot hurt you...

Look, my previous point was partially in jest, but has some truth to it. Most of us are pitifully small targets. We don't own much and never will. We don't do much that we would like to hide, and never will. Where ID theft is an issue we need to be aware of, and being a victim of ID theft is painful and expensive, the actual chances of it being a serious problem are pretty slim.

Now if you are a public figure, like to do illegal things, or you have managed to collect a lot of assets you need to protect, that's a different story. But for most of us, the effort needed to make yourself pretty safe is minimal, cheap to do and easy. Here's my suggestions for you folks that fall into the "not much" category...

1. Check your credit report three times a year, free of cost, by asking the three credit reporting agencies for the legally required credit report.

2. Develop an alternative ID that you use when you don't legally have to give up your real ID. Make sure your alternate ID includes a fake birthday and do something with your name. Only use your real ID where it is required, otherwise supply the alternate ID.

3. Look at your bank and credit card statements EVERY month and report any suspicious transactions immediately.

4. Don't use debit/credit cards which are tied to your checking account for anything but getting cash from your bank's ATMs, use a separate credit card that you pay off each month. Do this for automatic bill payments, shopping etc. If you insist on directly linking a checking account to something else, NEVER EVER keep more money in it than necessary and don't authorize the bank to automatically take money from another account to prevent overdrafts.

If you do the above, chances are good you will never have a problem and you won't need to spend a dime on credit monitoring. Chances are also good that you will become aware of any ID theft and be able to stop it before it gets out of hand.

Re:Okay, So Why Should I Be Paranoid?

[kilfarsnar]

I have zero to hide from anyone

Posting as AC. Irony?

So if you have zero to hide, you won't mind sending me your home address, bank details, and medical records?

Why did you leave off the second half of his post and then reply as though he hadn't written it? He said that even though he has nothing to hide he still values privacy. That implies that he would not give you his financial and medical information. And his AC post is not ironic, because again, he values privacy.

Re: Okay, So Why Should I Be Paranoid?

[KGIII]

I should have scrolled down. You were much more succinct than I. Thanks.

If anything, we've more tools for anonymity than ever before and, with anonymity, we've more tools to be more private. The clerk at the store in the village often has stuff waiting on the counter for me and half rung-up by the time I reach the checkout. When my neighbor has an animal die then I'm soon underway with my tractor to help them bury it. When another has a child then I've probably already purchased them a gift-card. When I am sad, a neighbor will bring me something to cheer me up. My mailman probably knows a lot of the things I enjoy given all the tech mags and related mail that loudly explain the contents to a casual viewer. In return, my mailman (technically a woman) gets a nice gift card on her birthday and at Christmas and Thanksgiving.

We've never had more tools for privacy than we have today. People still willingly and knowingly give up this privacy. Why? Well, to allude to my above post, I can only presume it's because they want me to give them a gift card. Figuratively, of course.

Re:Okay, So Why Should I Be Paranoid?

[kilfarsnar]

in my country, my sexuality is a death sentence.

That's one thing the Muslims got right...

Is there anyone you don't hate?

Re:Okay, So Why Should I Be Paranoid?

[JMJimmy]

It's not only about data theft or being a high value "target". It's about you deciding when and who knows what about you so you can function in your "pitiful" life. I don't need my bosses knowing about my time away from work, I don't need my wife knowing about my porn habits, and I certainly wouldn't like strangers I'm trying to conceal my identity from in an "anonymous" program being told exactly who I am. There are so many things we keep private, white lies we tell people, all to keep our lives as functional as possible and big data cannot make the judgements necessary to determine what is private/what can be openly shared. Only we can do that.

Re:Okay, So Why Should I Be Paranoid?

[interval1066]

I have a real problem with those who reply "I have nothing to hide" when in discussions with them about privacy. I suppose I could forgive those who know nothing of history or believe their government is this benevolent entity who stops bad guys and sets road signs to show you the way, even when they castigate Edward Snowden. But when I reply "Ok, let me have your soc., your bank numbers, and your daughter's phone and address, they of course object. When I switch it up and say "Ok, I'm the government, give my those things." they come up with "Well, you already have them" or a whole myriad of reasons why its ok. The switch is simply bizarre to me.

Re:Okay, So Why Should I Be Paranoid?

[mrchaotica]

His willingness to use such an unethical strategy proves Trump is a terrible choice all by itself.

Re:Okay, So Why Should I Be Paranoid?

[bobbied]

You poor soul.

Look if you are this paranoid, perhaps it might be a good idea to seriously think about your life and why you feel the need to be so worried about stuff, why you feel the need to play the role of a hypocrite with your wife and why you think anybody cares as much as you do about who you are.

Personally, I'm not so full of myself that I think anybody cares to out me, or that I can hide a porn habit from my wife, or that somebody can blackmail me by the stuff I do in private. In general, my private life doesn't matter enough or differ enough from my public life that I would care if somebody exposed it or that anybody would find it shocking who knew me. I am who I am, and I'm not trying to fool others into thinking I'm something that I'm not so I don't really have anything to hide.

I feel sorry that you do have apparently a lot to hide, that you are either not able to accept yourself as you are, or that you are trying to fool those around you into thinking better of you than you deserve, that you are a fake, to yourself and others. People know you are a phony, that you are putting on an act no matter how good you are at hiding the truth and they will find it hard to trust you. I hope that someday you learn to accept yourself, warts and all, stop the act and learn what relationships are really supposed to be.

Re:Okay, So Why Should I Be Paranoid?

[JMJimmy]

Seriously? Your, or rather every potential boss wouldn't care if you were a casual marijuana user in your personal time or liked to dress up in drag on the weekends or a million other things that some people find harmless and others find abhorrent? You're taking it to the extreme of blackmail but I'm thinking simply of being fired from your job, passed over for promotion, or limited in some other way from progressing in your career. Marriage is the same, yes my wife knows I watch porn but it's not something we share. I don't know what she would say/think about what I watch but at the same time she doesn't want to know. She believes that it's private so 'ignorance is bliss' to her. If she pops onto my computer and suddenly gets targeted ads.... that is information neither one of us wants shared. Would she leave me if she found out? No. Could someone blackmail me? Hell no. Is it something I really want out there? Not really because it's easier for it not to be.

These things don't have to be "negative" either. I want to take my wife on a trip somewhere so I start investigating places I know she's wanted to visit and all the sudden the ads switch and she now knows I'm looking at these things - there goes the 10th anniversary surprise. Is it the end of the world? No. Does it ruin some of the romance of surprising your spouse with a special gift? Absolutely.

Everyone does things they don't want others to know about. They express opinions which might not be popular or could be hurtful to the wrong person. They say/search things that, when taken out of context, can land them in serious trouble. It doesn't make you a bad person or someone who "has a lot to hide", it makes you human. If anything I'd be sorry for anyone who was completely honest with those around them.

Re:Okay, So Why Should I Be Paranoid?

[Anubis IV]

Precisely. To the best of my knowledge, I don't have any skeletons lurking in my closet. I've never had a run-in with the police, my wife is the only person I've ever been romantically involved with, I didn't see a point in experimenting with drugs, and even though I have several drinks a month, I've never even had enough in one sitting to get buzzed, let alone drunk enough to regret it later.

And yet, despite all of that, I fiercely value my privacy. Why? Because relationships work best when they're symmetrical.

Traditionally, I learn about you as you learn about me, and we have a set of shared experiences that bind us together. But when my information is just out there for the world to see, corporations or other people can read up on me without any sort of reciprocation. In real life, we call those people stalkers, but for some reason we're more willing to turn a blind eye when it happens in the virtual world, presumably because the stalkers have realized that they're essentially invisible online. And while creepy behavior like that definitely bothers me, it's by no means the only problem created by asymmetrical relationships.

Even in the case of someone "harmlessly" (i.e. typical friendly stuff) checking my social networking profiles*, however, it creates a false sense of closeness. When they read something more about me, they feel closer to me, whereas there's been no change on my end. One of the ways we establish meaningful relationships is by sharing our life's stories with others we meet, but because my stories have been reduced to status updates on a timeline, I'm left with little that's meaningful to share. As a result, there ends up being a one-sidedness to the conversation as they catch me up. That one-sidedness, in turn, merely serves to reinforce the false closeness, since their sharing makes them feel even closer to me, whereas my being reduced to a listening post makes me feel even more distant.

Beyond those, however, there's also the issue of security. Asking "why do you need privacy if you have nothing to hide?" is no different than asking "why does your castle have a moat it if there are no attackers at the gate?" It's missing the point. You can't easily take back your privacy once it's been invaded, just as you can't easily build a moat around your castle once the invaders are banging on your door. I value the fact that my privacy serves as a moat that makes it a lot harder (though not impossible) to attack me and the people I protect.

As a software developer, I have an awareness of the fact that entities should only be granted the minimum permissions necessary for the job they're doing. Most crimes are crimes of opportunity, and if I live my life in public, I give strangers the ability to greet me with a false sense of familiarity, feign an awareness of a topic that may get me to share more details about it, or just generally make use of all the information I've shared as fodder for social engineering attacks. When it's just me, that's bad enough as it is, but when I consider that my wife and I are planning to have kids, the last thing I want is for a stranger to be able to greet my kids with information they'd think only a friend would know.

Long story short, I don't like having strangers in my personal space. There may be nothing illegal about it, but it's definitely wrong. I value meaningful, deep relationships. You can still have them in a world of social networks, but they're undermined by the asymmetry that a life in public produces. I value my "privacy moat". It admittedly does not provide me with any visible benefit the vast majority of the time, but that's because we'll never hear about the attacks that never happened on account of the people next to me being easier targets than me.

So yeah, privacy. It's good, even if you have nothing to hide.

* Speaking hypothetically, since aside from a brief stint where I reactivated my Facebook profile so my future in-laws could contact me more easily, I've been off the site since 2009.

Re:Okay, So Why Should I Be Paranoid?

[bobbied]

Again, if you are trying to hide your behavior from someone because they wouldn't like it or it would embarrass you or others, it's YOU who has the problem. If you worry that a current or future employer might take exception to your activities, you might consider not doing them so you don't have to worry about it. But if you still want to pretend to be something you are not, you are responsible for having to worry about the duplicity being exposed.

Keeping a surprise gift secret from your wife, while a *possible* reason to be concerned, doesn't represent a huge risk, assuming she would actually like the gift. Not to mention that if you are acting trustworthy and open in the rest of your interactions with her, she's not likely to be checking up on you and running though your browser history on a regular basis anyway. Besides, if MY wife happened to catch on to something I was setting up to surprise her, she would either express her excitement right away, or wait for the "surprise" and do it then. I'm golden either way for going to the effort for her, so I'm not that worried about her finding out.

Re: Okay, So Why Should I Be Paranoid?

[CronoCloud]

We've never had more tools for privacy than we have today.

-----BEGIN PGP MESSAGE----- Version: GnuPG v1 hQIMA9JDTBf+9dG+AQ//dGqp82T5jOBBMtxvB4NftfXrA0tGftb9OgM9jfOq7Kh1 /wC+xVXX20jP+2HAvnUnUQCq0pxT4qoYy5rpCJwhSvN1v0QfA+cxerJkR2BYlGJj cqorcVhPfjwxaHKuBsT8J4n7Fzkg+S4sbRGoLKVtk0z7dEQocbt2u3v/bIK1zxGJ JErwQJcoMVJKC6ctpEIq2irTXNMrR4jDlS2jOoWA9LRMGDWtp6h30klHb8LjCnoC GyTyUVi7lg3sp1W7tZdg8mzEJMmu9nBGyPzLK0a8NtQDQtOUj/UvGClXELiXwhef pO2xwPYHZdEpzYQDLNubmyne/SvkSFSV9y6nh/E6Pudwf288ORufgJNRTf5XoK8C ekqrRzfdqcB15h+jGleXkdzkPmRchkZCRyZYlBaENgpHJVS8jby+JdkkUwYczzzI W2KILW/UhYIhSYXgMOAOkNsXXQ3S0GzpuaTcV0ee8ij7HTsBozo8UMmCEho/ysF7 5Toc7wnqb9exrrf9P3NSJEdASr8MSQ1L/DqCJJyxZ2yQM7apvtl1hkdf2fqtGaHV j3OGyjir1mEezxPdBSFEEAeq5okQi4/KqcSnuE3z+1FgnheNCOZWiqRrtkCMAY1U jxGQGLT4ociWTkAPwirmotNFX1AY/C8V+AZ6ohIa+Hcn1d0z9vhY8M9vZYjKvDDS hAFS20OX90PgLRPrOn9+M2HmGWGXqB0hPjcLBoqCLk9Hevxt5YB5w4/fY1QHQun8 GzK/VqJR0lG094Or5PDQxt3hGwelTw4wvhF/2T1ndOkMVni3HVmalK4JSlJmR2vR JS1vjMbCcoQnwA94cLP2xFkWCXe1MwlvkNXSvNfB+j2I/Fhvtg== =7/3y -----END PGP MESSAGE-----

Re:Okay, So Why Should I Be Paranoid?

[JMJimmy]

So you think it's better to give up my privacy and liberty so that I don't lose opportunity? What is the point of freedoms/rights if you cannot exercise them for fear of the consequences? That's about as dishonest as you can be with yourself trying to suppress what/who you are to fit society's expectations.

Re:Okay, So Why Should I Be Paranoid?

[Anonymous Coward]

People burned someone merely suspected of being my sexuality to death. They weren't Muslims. This was in a Western country. It could happen to you tomorrow.

Re:Okay, So Why Should I Be Paranoid?

[bobbied]

How's this an issue of freedom? You still have your freedom.

Don't confuse freedom to act with freedom from consequences. They are NOT the same. For instance, you are free to go out and run up your credit card balance as high as they will let you buying anything you want, but you are going to have to pay the credit card bills as they come. Or, you are free to go out and have an affair and not use protection, but if a pregnancy happens or you get an STD because of it, consequences will come. (Or if your wife finds out and divorces you, it's a consequence of your choices, not a curb on your freedom.) Your thinking that an employer might not talk kindly to recreational use of drugs on your free time is just a consequence of you exercising your freedoms. It's not a curb on your freedoms, but a consequence of your choices.

So if you need to hide who you really are because you want to avoid consequences of your behavior, it's on you and nobody else. Perhaps it might be a good idea to either fess up to who you really are so you can stop worrying that somebody might find out? Or, if you want to avoid the consequences, perhaps it's a better idea to choose to modify your behavior so you don't have to worry anymore?

Re:Okay, So Why Should I Be Paranoid?

[JMJimmy]

This is an issue of freedom because without the ability to exercise freedom then you do not actually have it.

Consequences, yes they happen and must be dealt with. That does not mean that I must disclose these things or expect them to be monitored/tracked/etc. I may have to pay that credit card bill but my employer does not need to know that information nor my extended family/friends/strangers. Just like the person in the article who's identity was disclosed by simply entering a person's phone number into a contact list. In that case it wasn't a huge consequence, the person it was disclosed to was a fellow AA member, however, who is to say that information isn't later disclosed to his employer in the same manner? His act of getting help for his problem becomes an issue for advancement, possibly retaining his position at the company.

Re:Okay, So Why Should I Be Paranoid?

[Jane Q. Public]

Ya, that law was never going to work. You need to be able to track 13 year olds to be able to "not" track them otherwise how would you know if they're 13 or not?

Which is one of the reasons I wrote that "Opt-In" is the only way to make tracking work in a reasonable and legal manner.

Re:Okay, So Why Should I Be Paranoid?

[Hognoxious]

S/He's talking about police

So was I.

https://www.youtube.com/watch?...

Re: Okay, So Why Should I Be Paranoid?

[david_thornley]

And if you send a PGP-encoded message to a random person, there's probably at least a 95% chance that they won't know what to do with it. (The odds are way different if you send it to a random Slashdot member.) It's not usable in general.

Re: Okay, So Why Should I Be Paranoid?

[KGIII]

Heh... My public key is right here on /. (as well as on the MIT servers).
http://slashdot.org/pubkey.pl?...

Re:Okay, So Why Should I Be Paranoid?

[david_thornley]

I have very little to hide. Most of my life is stuff I don't care about people knowing. I always carry my phone around and pay for almost everything with credit cards. (There are exceptions, things I do not make public. I'm not telling you what they are.)

However, I don't know that that will last forever. I may well want to do something secret in the future. I want to preserve that right.

Re:Okay, So Why Should I Be Paranoid?

[david_thornley]

Do you really think that limiting oneself to activities that would not embarrass one is a good way to live? There are things I do that I don't want to be public knowledge. Not because there's anything wrong with them, but because some people would react negatively. Why should I have to have mainstream religious beliefs, for example?

Re:Okay, So Why Should I Be Paranoid?

[david_thornley]

Ever heard of celibacy? A pedophile doesn't have to act on it, or have an active sex life.

Re:Okay, So Why Should I Be Paranoid?

[david_thornley]

Young boys will claim to be over 18 so they can see the good stuff.

Re:Okay, So Why Should I Be Paranoid?

[Pebby]

You're already at 5, so instead of mod points, I just want to give you my thanks. There's been plenty of discussion in this thread from you, but this one really hits the nail on the head with the concept of being human.

Re:Okay, So Why Should I Be Paranoid?

[Curunir_wolf]

I'm not going to convince you but for most people it's plain as day that he uses the language of hate and fear to gain popularity.

It's "obvious" to you because this is what the media focuses on and interprets for you, and you have been propagandized with it. Not because he actually does that. His campaign has nothing to do with hate or fear. Look at Sander's campaign to see someone running on hate. Check out Cruz or Lindsey Graham's campaigns for something based on fear. These are just out-of-context quotes used to excoriate Trump.

Since you don't seem to understand how this works, let me explain it to you. The media covers politics the way the DC political consultants tell them to. That's because media companies get a LOT of money from those consultants. Any candidate that does NOT hire these consultants for their campaign is at a significant disadvantage because of the influence these consultants have in the coverage.

"Laziness is a trait in the blacks. ... Black guys counting my money! I hate it" - Trump

This one kind of surprised me - I hadn't heard it repeated before, so I went to check the context. I found where it came from on a HuffPo article from 2011, which says he didn't directly deny it, but the veracity is very questionable. In any case, the article points out Trump's public support of civil rights, donations to civil rights groups, etc., although it paints an unflattering picture of Trump generally. Regardless, there is nothing racist about his campaign, it has nothing to do with his positions or his views on these issues, which seem reasonable.

"China is killing us. They’ve taken so much of our wealth. They’ve taken our jobs. They’ve taken our business, they’ve taken our manufacturing, [audience member screams out “our land”] Our land? The way they’re going they’ll have that pretty soon.Think about it, we have rebuilt China — somebody said to me “that’s a harsh statement” — it’s the greatest theft in the history of the United States." - Trump

So you're in favor of moving more manufacturing jobs to China? Driven by more dirty coal power plants? This is about US competition with China - all countries compete for better trade position, and China is producing all the cheap crap that Walmart sells millions of dollars worth of every day. THIS is one of the threats we should be focused on. Afghanistan and Syria are not going to attack us any time soon, but we are pouring billions into military operations there, while China has all the jobs. Not sure what this has to do with Hitler. Trump isn't advocating invading China or anything like that. He's pointing out that our politicians and multinational corporations have sent all of our manufacturing there, and we can't compete with them. He's right.

I assume you're a TPP supporter? Because that's going to close down more jobs in the US, send more manufacturing to Asia, and allow global multinational corporations to have more power than ever.

When Mexico sends its people, they’re not sending their best. They’re not sending you. They’re not sending you. They’re sending people that have lots of problems, and they’re bringing those problems with us. They’re bringing drugs. They’re bringing crime. They’re rapists. And some, I assume, are good people." - Trump

Okay, this was about illegal immigrants. And, yes, they are causing problems for the US. This, again, is about the US competing with other countries, primarily. What you left out was the intro to this quote:

When do we beat Mexico at the border? They're laughing at us, at our stupidity. And now they are beating us economically. They are not our

Re:Okay, So Why Should I Be Paranoid?

[JMJimmy]

I'm not going to convince you but for most people it's plain as day that he uses the language of hate and fear to gain popularity.

It's "obvious" to you because this is what the media focuses on and interprets for you, and you have been propagandized with it.

I'm actually not influenced by the media much. I don't have cable, don't listen to the radio, don't troll blogs/news sites, etc. I think for myself and go back to the original transcripts when I do decide to take interest in a subject (as I did with all three of those quotes).

"Laziness is a trait in the blacks. ... Black guys counting my money! I hate it" - Trump

This one kind of surprised me - I hadn't heard it repeated before, so I went to check the context. I found where it came from on a HuffPo article from 2011, which says he didn't directly deny it, but the veracity is very questionable. In any case, the article points out Trump's public support of civil rights, donations to civil rights groups, etc., although it paints an unflattering picture of Trump generally. Regardless, there is nothing racist about his campaign, it has nothing to do with his positions or his views on these issues, which seem reasonable.

It was a direct quote from his twitter account. The tweet has long since been deleted but it was captured and reported on extensively.

"China is killing us. They’ve taken so much of our wealth. They’ve taken our jobs. They’ve taken our business, they’ve taken our manufacturing, [audience member screams out “our land”] Our land? The way they’re going they’ll have that pretty soon.Think about it, we have rebuilt China — somebody said to me “that’s a harsh statement” — it’s the greatest theft in the history of the United States." - Trump

So you're in favor of moving more manufacturing jobs to China? Driven by more dirty coal power plants? This is about US competition with China - all countries compete for better trade position, and China is producing all the cheap crap that Walmart sells millions of dollars worth of every day. THIS is one of the threats we should be focused on. Afghanistan and Syria are not going to attack us any time soon, but we are pouring billions into military operations there, while China has all the jobs. Not sure what this has to do with Hitler. Trump isn't advocating invading China or anything like that. He's pointing out that our politicians and multinational corporations have sent all of our manufacturing there, and we can't compete with them. He's right.

I assume you're a TPP supporter? Because that's going to close down more jobs in the US, send more manufacturing to Asia, and allow global multinational corporations to have more power than ever.

If his comments were strictly about the loss of manufacturing, I would agree with you. Unfortunately he couldn't keep his racism in check and called them thieves stealing from Americans, which is exactly what the Nazis did with the Jews - they painted them as thieves/rats/etc stealing from Germans. Also, TPP is the worst agreement since NAFTA - I hope it dies.

When Mexico sends its people, they’re not sending their best. They’re not sending you. They’re not sending you. They’re sending people that have lots of problems, and they’re bringing those problems with us. They’re bringing drugs. They’re bringing crime. They’re rapists. And some, I assume, are good people." - Trump

Okay, this was about illegal immigrants. And, yes, they are causing problems for the US. This, again, is about the US competing with other countries, primaril

Re:Okay, So Why Should I Be Paranoid?

[bobbied]

Now you are making a different argument. Nice spin there..

If your employer acts on stuff you really did in a way you don't like, consider it a consequence of your choices.

Personally, I don't worry about stuff like this. I am who I portray myself to be, even in private and my off hours so I'm not running around in fear that some piece of information might leak out. I suggest that you might be happier if you adopt the same policy and not having to be careful all the time.

So what if you go to AA meetings? Be honest about it, OWN it. (BTW, Isn't that one of the rules of AA anyway?) Personally I'd have a LOT of respect for somebody who was honest about this and wasn't trying to hide their faults. If you work for somebody who doesn't share that perspective and worries that having a recovering alcoholic on their staff is a bad thing. you might be better off with another position anyway.... But hey, it's up to you. You can continue to live in worry and lie about yourself or choose to do the things necessary to help yourself do better so you don't have to lie and worry about getting caught.

Re:Okay, So Why Should I Be Paranoid?

[bobbied]

I'm saying you should be happy and secure in what YOU choose to do, not that you are subject to the moral views of others. I'm advocating that you accept yourself for who you are and not bother putting on an act designed to fool others. Be who you are, warts and all. It's easier and less stressful because you don't have to worry about somebody finding out some juicy fact and suddenly rejecting you because you where lying. You don't have to keep all the lies straight either.

However, this doesn't preclude you from suffering the consequences for your behavior. If you choose (for example) to do recreational drugs on your free time, but are working a job that has random drug testing and get pulled out to get tested, you will have consequences. If you still want to do it, just be honest and accept what the consequences could be and go on with your life.

Consider this advice the other side of the self reliance coin. On one side you have "I depend on myself" and the other you have "I accept who I am" because really they go hand in hand. Be happy with yourself, be honest with others and you will go far in life.

Re: Okay, So Why Should I Be Paranoid?

[CronoCloud]

It's a valid message, Slashdot messed up the formatting...again. Just put in the linebreaks and you should be able to decrypt with your key. The message said: "Yes, but how many people actually use them."

I have my key on Slashdot and the keyservers as well, though I rarely encrypt mail. I do GnuPG sign my mail though. I also have one of those Comodo free e-mail certs but use that VERY rarely.

Re: Okay, So Why Should I Be Paranoid?

[KGIII]

Yeah, I too usually just sign stuff. I hardly ever encrypt. Nobody knows how to decrypt it. *sighs* I kind of wish that it were more well known. It's not exactly difficult any more. It's actually fairly easy. It's just that nobody does it.

Re: Okay, So Why Should I Be Paranoid?

[CronoCloud]

Well KGill does have a pubkey on Slashdot. That said....even on Slashdot PGP/GnuPG usage isn't all that high. I myself rarely encrypt, though I do sign my e-mail. I have one of the Comodo freecerts as well.

My message in response to Kgill mentioning the privacy tools stated: "Yes, but how many people actually use them." One wouldn't send a PGP-encoded message (meaning encrypted) to someone without already having their pubkey. Signed messages are different of course, and you're right that probably 95% percent of people don't have the necessary tools installed to check if the signature is valid.

Then again there's the famoux XKCD joke:
https://xkcd.com/1181/

Which would only apply to PGP/INLINE since with PGP/MIME a recipient wouldn't see the "BEGIN PGP MESSAGE" in the first place.

The percentage of peole having the PGP/GnuPG tools being higher amongst Linux users, of course, since gnupg is usually installed by default.

I'm wondering on what's taking so long for Google/Yahoo to finish up their end-to-end OpenPGP based extension. Not that I actually use Gmail's web interface mind you, IMAP all the way for me.

At least Slashdot lets us share our precious pubkeys. Facebook does as well and will even encrypt notification messages to you. Which is one of the very very few good privacy-related things that Facebook actually does.

Re: Okay, So Why Should I Be Paranoid?

[Jack Griffin]

Second, we need programs that regularly send out so much fake data that this tracking is rendered useless.

I agree. Most of us work in IT so know the horror that awaits us as we go down this path, but Joe Sixpack just doesn't seem to care. I can now understand how the switched-on people in Germany must've felt while they watched their countrymen support a psychopath who sold the dream, but instead delivered misery and death.
We may not suffer quite as bad a fate, but I can't see any scenario in which this is a net win for the public as a whole.

Re:Okay, So Why Should I Be Paranoid?

[Jack Griffin]

You must hang out with different people than I do. Most men I've met, once you break down the wall of political correctness and manners that society seem to shackle us all with, share similar views about pussy. We all love it, and would do anything to get more of it. In having a connection to the sex industry (legal where I live), the biggest market is men around 35-55, because they tend to ignore social stereotypes and listen to their bodies instead.
My gay friends share similar views about dick or ass, although society doesn't have the same expectation of them to behave a certain way, so they are a lot more open about.
I'm not aware of any pedos in my circle, but can only assume they have the same needs and desires about their sexual bent, which none of us have much control over.
Probably also worth noting I met a guy once who I thought was gay, but he claimed to be asexual. He said he had no sexual desires for either men or women, he was just stuck in neutral. That's the thing with biology, it runs the full spectrum, but you have no say in it.

Re:Okay, So Why Should I Be Paranoid?

[Jack Griffin]

Ever heard of celibacy?

I've heard of people pretending to be celibate. Like Catholic ministers, who somehow also seem to be the largest segment of the community into kiddie sex. See any pattern there?

Re: Okay, So Why Should I Be Paranoid?

[penguinoid]

You are free to do as you wish in this regard, but who appointed you as god?

This is no different than why we don't allow drunk driving; one man's actions affect others who may have no choice in the matter.

In terms of privacy, others giving away their privacy affects me -- they give away my privacy without my consent. For one thing, their actions affect law and unofficial policies regarding privacy. In particular, the fact that everyone has given up their privacy means that to protect my own, I have to carefully read pages and pages of legalese or privacy policies, and probably don't even have a choice if I want a certain class of service -- for example, good luck finding a social network that doesn't data-mine you, or even a credit card, or supermarket. Also, companies like Facebook will use your acquaintances' data to collect data about you, even if you're not signed up.

Re: Okay, So Why Should I Be Paranoid?

[N1AK]

Not picking on you personally but why are so many people interested in what others do with their privacy?

We're both commenting on the same article, thus you're showing just as much interest as I am... the only difference is that I think people are making a mistake by valuing their personal information so lowly and you don't. Why do you care so much about people, allegedly, caring so much about what others do with their privacy?

Re:Okay, So Why Should I Be Paranoid?

[Ol Olsoc]

Again, if you are trying to hide your behavior from someone because they wouldn't like it or it would embarrass you or others, it's YOU who has the problem.

Wuffo you trying to make this a digital situation, where a person who desires any privacy has to be some sort of sicko versus a person who is so pure in mind and thought, that their internet habits should be engraved on a plaque and displayed as a sign of purity?

Because if someone wants to look at shemale midget scat porn, well, that's pretty creepy, but it ain't illegal.

What we ar etalking about is embarassments, and judgements based on incomplete data, like big data assuming the OP was an Alcoholic and using underhand tactict to try to help him.

And how this kind of crap can wreck your life, as if in my job, if I was thought an alcoholic, I'd probably lose it.

Bad judgements via big data based on incomplete data.

And your pure as the driven snow internet use data might not be as above reproach as you think. And what is pure today, might not be pure tomorow.

Let's take my habits for instance.

I watch a lot of youtube videos. Many of them about chemistry, and I'm a slut for military history and nucs, and rockets.

See where this is going?

I also have a side hobby of making metal stuff with machine shop tools, so I'm looking at how-to's in metalworking

. Amateur Radio, Amateur Telescope Making, linux stuff.

Probably the most innocent part of what I do there is I enjoy Karl Pilkington videos, although with the things that go boom and chemistry interest and prepperish DIY inclinations, plus possibly a peeping Tom, they might conclude I was insane as well.

DANGER, WILL ROBINSON!

We got ourselves a mis-crea-ant heah!

See, that's the problem. I don't know what the guy you are arguing over has to hide - if he has anything to hide. If he's doing something illegal, he'll be caught eventually. If not, I don't give a flying wallenda. But your idea that anyone who doesn't want interstalked is some sort of criminal is just wrong.

It isn't what is "wrong" now, it's what might be "wrong" in the future. It's following a legal and possibly helpful link that might get you branded as something you aren't, and end up destroying your life.

And all in the name of what? Providing me advertisements of things I already bought? And the natural spreading out of that surveillance, oops stalking, ooops, helping you enjoy a better web experience.

Provide your web habits, and I suspect I could make some determinations about your likelyhood of being a criminal, without you ever having broken a law. Care to play, Tattoo? If you worry that a current or future employer might take exception to your activities, you might consider not doing them so you don't have to worry about it. But if you still want to pretend to be something you are not, you are responsible for having to worry about the duplicity being exposed.

Keeping a surprise gift secret from your wife, while a *possible* reason to be concerned, doesn't represent a huge risk, assuming she would actually like the gift. Not to mention that if you are acting trustworthy and open in the rest of your interactions with her, she's not likely to be checking up on you and running though your browser history on a regular basis anyway. Besides, if MY wife happened to catch on to something I was setting up to surprise her, she would either express her excitement right away, or wait for the "surprise" and do it then. I'm golden either way for going to the effort for her, so I'm not that worried about her finding out.

Re:Okay, So Why Should I Be Paranoid?

[lott11]

Look there is to many jack asses in this world, and I do mean it. Because they think that putting there life’s on the net, is going to make them popular. Well that is how brilliant they are. If you want to proof me wrong just look at you-tube. Now if you are real a bought privacy, this are the things you should do. 1. place your cell phone in the trash. 2. get a cheap cell phone with no apps, yes a $10.00 no GPS, no web, no text. 3. get rid off all Apple and Microsoft OS move to BSD or Linux and no Ubuntu products. Now if that is to extremist, here is the other way. Use like I stated BSD or Linux then just us TOR for all your web and clear cache on exit. If you have and Android cell do the same TOR for the web and clear cache. Limit cookies to place you look at and disable third party cookies, I imposable text only and no java apps. Install ads blocker and disconnect and last but not least cover your cell phone mic & cameras and speaker. And when I say cover microphone and speakers cameras, there are hard shell cases that do this for weather proofing. And last thing never use public hot spots, also disable GPS. This will make it harder for other companies to track, remember harder not impossible. It dose limit your life stile but it just makes harder to be tracked. Now you will piss off the NSA but screw them they are getting all the info any way. This will make them take more time to probe all your web action, the hell with them you are paying for it any way. Now there are other things to do, but most then are out of the hands of most people. Like I stated they are to simple minded & ignorant to know better.

Re:Okay, So Why Should I Be Paranoid?

[david_thornley]

Catholic priests actually sexually molest children at about the rate of other people in similar positions of authority. The rate is appallingly high, in my opinion, but priests are merely the most well-known molesters.

The really bad thing the Catholic Church did was not to have priests who were sexual predators, but to cover up the cases, and in many cases transfer the priest away to a position with plenty of fresh prey.

Re:Okay, So Why Should I Be Paranoid?

[david_thornley]

Some moral things I choose to do, and some personal traits and/or conditions, are not things I want generally known. They could result in complications not to my advantage. I'm not lying about anything, I'm just not telling people some things. I would very much like to continue not telling people these things.

Re:Okay, So Why Should I Be Paranoid?

[bobbied]

Then as I have said before, consider such "discoveries" to be natural consequences of your choices and stop worrying about it. If you insist on doing stuff that others might judge you for I have no problem with it, in so far as 1. You don't lead people to believe differently about you and 2. You don't claim that your freedoms are infringed should there be negative impacts on you when others find out. I.E. If you are willing to accept any natural consequences w/o complaint and don't have an internal struggle with yourself over the ethics/morals of your choices, do what you think is right.

Re:Okay, So Why Should I Be Paranoid?

[bobbied]

If you are worried about their security, then I don't disagree with you, be careful about what your phone knows about you and use the dumbest phone you can manage. However, it might just be good enough to keep separate identities out there by inventing an alias for yourself like I do. I change some important facts by mixing up stuff between the three people who I know who share my exact name. (And as far as I know, we are they ONLY ones with this name because it's pretty unique.) It is more dangerous for me than most, given that there are only three possible ID's here, but if you have a more common name, doing something like this will be nearly a guarantee that ID thieves will pick somebody else who's being stupid about it..

If you want to be paranoid, feel free to disconnect... I don't think that it's necessary if you are careful, but hey, up to you.

Re:So, you're either Paranoid or Crazy

[JMJimmy]

Either way the men with the white coats are coming after you... or maybe the men with the funny glasses with an extra band on one side.

Those who don't learn from history...

Alcoholics Anonymous

[OakDragon]

Another simple one to trace was the stream of invitations to drug and alcohol rehab centers that I’d been getting ever since I’d consulted an online calendar of Los Angeles–area Alcoholics Anonymous meetings. Since membership in AA is supposed to be confidential, these emails irked me.

Of course the author just told the readership of The Atlantic... and by extension many others.

On a serious note, I wonder what online calendar it was? Anyway, the AA meetings are "secret." Not so much searches.

Re:Alcoholics Anonymous

[Anonymous Coward]

I wonder if the author has malware installed on his computer or is cherry picking coincidences to create a story. Google, Bing, et al do not provide email addresses and query histories to spammers. Similarly, there is no way that visiting a web page should provide your e-mail address to a spammer.

Re:Alcoholics Anonymous

[93 Escort Wagon]

The Facebook part of the story is easy to explain. He could have explicitly used the friend finder at some point, which mines your contacts (AND "helpfully" creates shadow profiles for any who aren't on Facebook). Alternatively, he could've been using the Facebook app on his phone, where it was given access to his contacts as part of the blanket permissions the Android version asks for at installation time.

I also wouldn't be surprised if he's taken some artistic license here and there to enhance his narrative.

Re:Alcoholics Anonymous

[rmdingler]

I also wouldn't be surprised if he's taken some artistic license here and there to enhance his narrative.

Of course. The best stories always seem to do just that. I suspect there's wisdom in both cautious acceptance and jaded disbelief.

But. Prior to the Snowden revelations, many an extroverted anti-establishment activist was referred to in educated company as a tin-hatter.

Re:Alcoholics Anonymous

[plover]

Or perhaps the author uses LinkedIn. Their web page periodically asks me to enter my email password to find new people to connect with -- by attempting to mine my (empty) online contact list. Or if he has the LinkedIn app on his iPhone, it, too, asks permission to access his Apple contacts, which it then would monitor continually for changes. I've never let their automation anywhere near my contact lists, but it kept prompting me right up until I uninstalled the damned app.

While I carefully won't allow my contact data to be harvested, I can't speak to the diligence of all my friends and acquaintances who have me in their contact lists.

Re:Alcoholics Anonymous

[Curunir_wolf]

Anyway, the AA meetings are "secret." Not so much searches.

Umm... no, not secret. At all. Anonymous. Which is much different. I assume the author was referring to this online calendar of AA meetings in the L.A. area which is, yes, public.

Re:Alcoholics Anonymous

[schnell]

Fine, but the fact that your government spied on you illegally (which honestly should have shocked no one who has been paying attention since J. Edgar Hoover ran the FBI) doesn't justify unrelated and uninformed privacy invasion theories. And while I don't think I want to waste time reading TFA, if the summary is accurate, I am disappointed in The Atlantic, an otherwise reputable source of journalism.

For example, while I think Google is filled with smug, hypocritical bastards, I have never ever heard a serious accusation that they are selling search results to spammers. Or e-mail marketers of any stripe, actually. If the author genuinely believes that he started getting spam about art purchases because he searched for a gallery's address in Google, that is a HUGE accusation against Google - that they are selling spammers e-mail addresses of people who search for stuff. Fucking HUGE. There's some proof that this is why he's getting spam, right? He's absolutely sure he didn't, for example, sign in at the gallery and leave his e-mail, which was viewed and copied down by others? Or something else? Anything?

You're wise to watch your privacy, if that's something you care a lot about. But be very VERY careful when you start attributing where and how your privacy is being violated unless you can actually prove what is going on and not just making guesses. You can be right about the effects and still wear a monster tinfoil hat about the causes, which still discredits your reasoning.

Re:Alcoholics Anonymous

[Archwyrm]

The idea that Google hands over email addresses from searches is absurd. I've been using my current GMail address for 8 years and barely get any spam. I do plenty of searching with Google too. You simply have to be careful about whom you give your email address.

Re:Alcoholics Anonymous

[StikyPad]

You simply have to be careful about whom you give your email address.

Or with whom you use object pronouns for that matter.

Re:Alcoholics Anonymous

[Zeromous]

Google does not sell spammers your email address. Spammers buy Ads which Google targets at you, protecting your privacy from the spammer. Although, maybe not the government :D

Re: Alcoholics Anonymous

[Archwyrm]

'whom' is the indirect object of 'give', which is a verb that can take three arguments. Those who understand that don't need to be careful at all as it is natural speech. But nice try, arm chair grammarian.

Some basic rules

[Anonymous Coward]

The basic rules:

1) Do not use "free" services that require you to identify yourself in some way. This includes most any service from Google, Facebook, etc.
2) Do not use "free" apps on your smart phone. It is next to impossible to prevent an app on your smartphone from providing ID information to outside entities.
3) Basically - learn the first rule of life - there is no such thing as a free lunch. If someone is giving you something for free, then they are taking something from you without telling you - in our modern era, that is almost always your identity in some way shape or form.

Re:Some basic rules

[aaarrrgggh]

Those don't help much. Paying for something doesn't do anything to guarantee you aren't being "spied" on.

The better goal is to become a low-value target and increase the cost of marketing to you. Use ad blocking, and when you do see ads, just click on them. Click around on the site a little bit, and happily close the tab and get on with your life. Try to do so while reciting how much you hate advertising scum and all kinds of negative thoughts while on the advertiser's pages to make sure any association with their brand is negative.

Focus on the ad block though. If they can't display an ad to you you don't have much value to them.

Re:Some basic rules

[Anonymous Coward]

> Basically - learn the first rule of life - there is no such thing as a free lunch.

Exactly that is what you get for free first in life: a free lunch in the form of your mother's milk.

Claiming it is not free is the supreme hypocrisy. It was given to you with nothing asked in return -- not even the promise of being a good son or being successful or even the mere minimum of being courteous to your mother.

No, it was given because she loved you, so that you could live at a time where no other food would be the same.

Stop saying foolishness and learn to be grateful for all the things we get for free. If nothing else, because seeing such displays of purported self-reliance are a source of discomfort: it reminds me of the occasions when I was arrogant...

Re:Some basic rules

[Altrag]

The fallacy here is that we're all low-value targets. Those ads you're avoiding are costing something tenths or hundredths of a penny. They really don't give a crap if a handful of people ignore them or try to game it or whatever.

All this shit is based on scale. If they advertise to 1,000,000 people and only 0.1% even pay any attention, that's still 1,000 people viewing their products and likely 10 or 20 that buy something -- which more than recoups the cost of those 999,000 "wasted" ads.

Tack on to that the fact that your connections and other such metadata are just as important as your browsing history. If they notice you've been looking at cars for example, they might send ads to your wife with more "girly" models or something.

You can go ahead and do everything in your power to reduce the visible impact to yourself (adblock and such) but don't mistake that for being immune to the disease -- you're only hiding the most obvious results of the data collection, not stopping the collection itself.

The only way to avoid all of these privacy breaches is stop using technology. Of any kind. No bank cards, no credit cards, no grocery store discount cards, no accounts on any websites. Hell probably don't even want an internet connection since that IP address is traceable in theory. Perhaps if you take a laptop with you and only use free public wifi and remember to re-image the device between usages so there's no possibility of leftover tracking data.. then maybe you can do something in near-complete privacy. Oh. And you probably shouldn't have any friends either in case they decide to post something about you on their wall/blog/whatever.

Re:Some basic rules

[Anonymous Coward]

You know, 50 years ago, everybody in town knew your business, knew who was cheating with whom, and who snored. This "privacy" craze is a 21st century artifact of a society so broken by selfishness that we think that we actually can have total privacy. Let me give you a hint; all benefits of society come with having to have things like a name and communicating with others.

Re:Some basic rules

[terbo]

>> your network card's MAC address would stay the same.

You could possibly have your MAC "reported" differently on every boot.

But you don't think they categorize access by site/time/device/other metrics?
So even if a different machine goes a different place and does similar things,
hits keys in certain ways, always uses certain words/phrases, always talks to
certain people ...

Just turn it all off and get a pen and pad.

Re: Some basic rules

[Aighearach]

It may have been given but it was not free. It had a cost albeit paid by the mother. Nothing in life is free and if you think it is then you are the one being foolish.

Exactly, to stretch far enough to make the statement seem true, you have to undefine other words so that they never can be used. Once you've redefined "free" so that nothing can be called free, even the supposedly free stuff that triggers recital of the cliche, then you can pretend it is true.

Except, it is a load of crap. Things can be free, that is why we have the word. The word describes real situations, it is not a word like "Utopia" that describes imaginary or "prefect" forms of things. Free stuff exists, just check popular writing to see that the word is used that way and therefore contains all those meanings.

If you're politically opposed to all things free, just be that. You don't have to believe that people are incapable of giving just because you decided that giving is bad.

Like it or not, you just got some free advice. Take it or leave it. But if you claim it cost something, I won't believe you.

Re:Some basic rules

[MacTO]

The "no such thing as a free lunch" rule doesn't actually work. Sometimes there are free lunches. Other times, you are paying for the lunch, but the people offering the lunch want you to pay more than advertised. At the end of the day, you have to look at it on a case by case basis. In some cases, it will be rather obvious (e.g. businesses expecting to generate revenues from free services). In other cases, it won't be obvious.

Re:Some basic rules

[Sir_Eptishous]

The only way to avoid all of these privacy breaches is stop using technology. Of any kind.

Ahhh, the all or nothing, black or white analogy.
This "all or nothing" worldview is used often by climate deniers, with the argument of "go live in a cave and don't like drilling", etc;

I hate to break it to ya, but there are shades of gray with privacy.
Sure, it's hard work and takes extra effort, but to frame the argument by saying things like "remember to re-image the device between usages so there's no possibility of leftover tracking data" is ridiculous.

Re:Some basic rules

[StikyPad]

Depends, but yes, reputations have been around as long as society, both formally and informally, and the shift is mostly just from undocumented to documented. Also, the information flowed both ways. Your banker knew everything about you, but so too did you know everything about your banker. Things are far more asymmetric these days, and the push for privacy is really about restoring that balance.

Re:Some basic rules

[Anonymous Coward]

"1) Do not use "free" services"

You're under the dangerous idea that you haven't already been compromised by the hardware, router, OS, etc. Why do you think the NSA is spying on everyone?

Jacob Applebaum - People Think They're Exempt From NSA (2014)

https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=JyT7yzap1Wc

Other Video 1
https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=tzzDMD8pFqk

Other Video 2
https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=A3XWDlTEVcs

The internet is a threat to all institutions of power (aka the rich and their corporations). The free flow of information is detrimental to their goals and aims (profits and control over us).

The (mass surveillance) by the NSA/others and abuse by law enforcement is just more part and parcel of state suppression of dissent against corporate interests. They're worried that the more people are going to wake up and corporate centers like the US and canada may be among those who also awaken. See this vid with Zbigniew Brzezinski, former United States National Security Advisor.

https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=Ttv6n7PFniY&feature=youtu.be&t=11

Brezinski at a press conference

https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=0kmUS--QCYY

States experiencing serious systemic "handicaps":

https://youtu.be/0kmUS--QCYY?t=246

Major powers, and imposing control over the awakened masses.

https://youtu.be/4usbR_kKCDs?t=397

Crisis of democracy

https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=ZYFxtNgOeiI

WIKILEAKS: U.S. Fought To Lower Minimum Wage In Haiti So Hanes And Levis Would Stay Cheap

http://www.businessinsider.com/wikileaks-haiti-minimum-wage-the-nation-2011-6

The real news:

http://therealnews.com/t2/

http://www.amazon.com/Democracy-Incorporated-Managed-Inverted-Totalitarianism/dp/069114589X

http://www.amazon.com/Shadow-Government-Surveillance-Security-Single-Superpower/dp/1608463656/

http://www.amazon.com/National-Security-Government-Michael-Glennon/dp/0190206446/

The Citibank memo

http://politicalgates.blogspot.ca/2011/12/citigroup-plutonomy-memos-two-bombshell.html

US distribution of wealth

https://imgur.com/a/FShfb

http://www2.ucsc.edu/whorulesamerica/power/wealth.html

Protectionism for the rich and big business by state intervention, radical market interference.

https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=WHj2GaPuEhY#t=349

Wikileaks

https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=ABDiHspTJww&feature=youtu.be

Manufacturing consent:

https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=KwU56Rv0OXM

https://vimeo.com/39566117

Re:Some basic rules

[ArsonSmith]

A gift is not free. That milk was paid for by the mother in some form. It is this small minded, self absorbed, megalomaniac thought line that created that phrase to begin with.

So Many Ways

[Anonymous Coward]

If you leave your mobile's Wi-Fi enabled whilst your out and about, there are HW/SW packages that gather everything about you and your device they are able to gather such as IMEI, phone number, MAC address to profile you across other properties the owner might possess. They buy and sell lists with this info to identify and analyse you to "be able to better serve you".

About a year ago, I read a bit about an executive that works for a company that gathers the aforementioned telemetry as well as other info. He basically said that the technology to actually almost spot-on identify anyone almost in real time is almost here. He recommends paying cash for things that could come back to haunt you later: the drink, cigarettes, a night at the pub with mates, a habit of large triple-meat pizzas weekly, you get the point. Using your debit or credit card enables them to track you because these companies buy purchasing habits.

Ditto becoming "friends" with firms online. They couldn't give a monkey's toss about whether you like something; they want to follow you on Facebook to see who your mates are, investigate your peccadilloes, whatever. Insurance companies are already involved with this and are penalising folk already for being "risky". If your friends list is a cast of other guys and girls who like the drink, holiday in risky areas, smoke fags or the other stuff, you are being catalogued for a price increase.

I've taken to using cash, never having my mobile's Wi-Fi on when I'm not at home, never paying with a debit card for the drink, fags, triple curries down the pub, you name it.

Re:So Many Ways

[JohnFen]

He recommends paying cash for things that could come back to haunt you later: the drink, cigarettes, a night at the pub with mates, a habit of large triple-meat pizzas weekly, you get the point.

I recommend using cash for all purchases as far as possible. Even completely innocent and innocuous purchases reveal far more about you than you think, when they are collected and analyzed as a whole.

Re:So Many Ways

[Sir_Eptishous]

Yea, it is interesting the debate that pops up on /. from time to time about using cash vs debit or credit cards.

There is a view, mainly from Canadians and Europeans(as I have noticed) that using cash is akin to "living in a cave" and that no respectable person would be caught dead with cash. A view that modern, chipped credit cards are the only way to go, etc;

From all the things I've read in the last few years, it makes much more sense to use cash for most purchases.
As the economy become more tied to digital, it becomes more fragile, less robust, less defensible against criminal activity, etc, etc...

Re:So Many Ways

[david_thornley]

I use credit cards for most purchases. Then I look like a credit card user, so if I pay cash for something I want kept private it's inconsistent with my image, and more likely to go unnoticed.

Your device is p0wned

[iamacat]

Google is not in e-mail advertising business. If you got any ads from maps visit, they would be the usual ones in your search results or banners on 3rd party sites (which do not get access to your e-mail or other identity info). Either you shared your e-mail in some other context related to the event, or your browser and/or mobile device are infected by keylogging/location logging malware.

You should get even more paranoid about your privacy!

Re:Your device is p0wned

[Bite The Pillow]

More likely, a contact's device is pwned. And their contact list is compromised. All of the e-mail or text data was probably consumed.

Statistically speaking, the likelihood of someone being compromised is small compared to a recipient being compromised.

Start sending purely nonsense, unrelated e-mails to made up addresses, and see if anything changes. If you like guns and motorcycles, ask about buying a Barbie doll collection, or vintage 8mm porn. If nothing changes, it's a contact.

Re:Your device is p0wned

[Anonymous Coward]

BS. You have no idea how cookie works, nor what those cookies contain, nor how tracking cookies actually works.

Cookies are only retrievable from the originating website. And some of critical cookies are https-only. Embedding iframe into some sites doesn't allow some random websites or ads to get google.com cookies or facebook.com cookies. What it means, is that those ads embedded in various web pages through iframe (that originate from the same ads network) get the same cookie from your browser whenever those iframes are loaded, along with usual HTTP headers (like referrer, user agent) and ip address, hence they can record what they get from iframe requests - when the same cookie (i.e. you) shows up in some other sites, the same ads network will get the same cookie (with referrer), hence they know those sites the browser with that cookie has visited.

Obviously, this does not mean your search traffic will somehow magically leak to those advertisers. Nor this means all your browsing history will suddenly be available to ads network. There's no straight way to extract email address. The only way, would be for ads network to somehow learn the email address associated with the browser session somehow in the past. But there's no way for ads network to just find out your "email address" unless you've told them in the past (e.g. sign up for sweepstake, etc).

Re:Your device is p0wned

[kheldan]

The author of this article might be paranoid for the wrong reasons, but his message and intent are right: if you're not thinking more about how much you're letting your privacy be compromised, then you're not doing yourself any favors.

Re:Your device is p0wned

[Solandri]

I'll add that spreading baseless conclusions like TFA that a company (Google in this case) is in fact selling off your email address can turn good companies bad. If Google is not selling your email address to spammers, but after enough negative publicity everyone thinks they are, they might just decide what the hell. People are blaming us for selling out anyway, so why don't we just sell out for real and at least make some money off it since we're taking the blame either way.

If you're going to publish conclusions, back it up with evidence. Otherwise you're just purveying rumor and gossip. I have two email addresses hosted by Gmail (I got my personal domain in on Google Apps for Business when it was free), and have never received any spam at them related to my web browsing. Furthermore, I own my own domain and create an email alias specific to each company when I sign up for their services (company_name@mydomain.com). I have never received any spam at google@mydomain.com.

Re:Your device is p0wned

[AmiMoJo]

Came here to say this too. I read a lot of complaints about privacy invasions online, but it doesn't happen to me on anything like that scale. The little spam I do get seems unrelated to anything I have done, ads don't follow me around web sites because they are all blocked, tracking cookies are blocked too. I only use ublock and Privacy Badger, nothing too fancy.

It makes me think most of these people have really bad computer security habits. I can't think of any other explanation for the huge difference in our experiences.

Re:Your device is p0wned

[swillden]

Yes, selling off a database to shady ass internet marketers is 100% totally equal to spamming you themselves. Clearly I have been living a lie.

Google doesn't sell user data. Their business model is in using that data to advertise on behalf of marketers, but never to give your data to the marketers.

Re:Your device is p0wned

[JohnFen]

Cookies are only retrievable from the originating website.

This depends on your browser. Most browsers have an option to only return cookies to the site that set them, but unless you turn it on, then the browser will serve cookies up to any site that asks, regardless of who created them.

Re:No such thing as privacy these days

[bobbied]

Ted Kaczynski is that you? I didn't think they let inmates on Slashdot..

a world we've been warning about for decades

[Anonymous Coward]

Many of us have been warning about that trend for decades, to be ignored by the vast majority who do not mind a world with not a single shred of privacy. "What do you have to hide?" they ask.

Those of us who don't want to live in that world sadly have little choice. It's increasingly hard to avoid it, try as you might. You can wall yourself off, refuse to use the privacy-invading tech that everyone else favors, but at the cost of being increasingly cut off from mainstream society and even your own friends who no longer use any non-corporatized online communication. "Why use email when there's Facebook? Dude, get with the times! Nobody's on email man!"

People appear to hate the idea of the original internet: open standards with communications that were not monitized or centrally controlled. They much prefer that it be replaced with proprietary services, closed non-interacting protocols, and corporate-censored for-profit services that monitize everything they do. Thereby, the rest of us are forced to watch the internet we knew and loved be dragged in a direction we hate to see. It feels like destroying everything that made it great. In fact, destroying the very things that allowed it to become as world-changing as it did.

And I say that as somebody who was not young when it was arpanet and Vaxen. Rips out my heart to see what's happened to the place since then. Improvement, good. Development without wisdom, not so much.

Re:a world we've been warning about for decades

[phantomfive]

People appear to hate the idea of the original internet: open standards with communications that were not monitized or centrally controlled. They much prefer that it be replaced with proprietary services, closed non-interacting protocols, and corporate-censored for-profit services that monitize everything they do.

That's kind of sad, actually

Re:a world we've been warning about for decades

[hughbar]

Agree. I've been around computing since 1976 and the intertubes since it moved steadily out of academia into the 'world'. I've proposed a couple of times, half seriously, that we just choose another couple of ports and 'leave' the 2015 web to Coca-Cola, Facebook [of which many people believe that IS the web] etc. etc.

I've noticed that every commercial web 'strategy' tries to maximise supplied user information. For example, I don't want to reveal my mobile number [it's usually switched off or in the kitchen drawer anyway, I'm old] so I put 99999 etc. in that field, unless I feel it's really necessary. I tick/untick the 'supply information to third parties and receive offers from third parties boxes'. I am on the mail preference list and telephone preference list in the UK, very little or no junk mail or robocalls. I'm with a cooperative that supplies telephone and broadband, not one of the big commercials. I've started using a lot of cash again, just to annoy anything that's datamining my shopping habits.

I'm aware that all this is somewhat quixotic and minimal, but it's better than inaction.

One last thing join where something = something-else is a powerful enemy, phone number, email address etc. and we don't really know who's doing that, on which set of databases and where. But 'they' [I don't necessarily mean NSA, could be Walmart, ASDA in the UK] are doing it. Maximise shareholder value baby and fuck your bratty whiny protests about 'privacy'.

Re:a world we've been warning about for decades

[AmiMoJo]

The phone number requirement when signing up for email is very annoying, but it's not there because Yahoo or whoever wants your phone number. It's there to stop abuse. It's much more work to get a new, working phone number than it is to create another email account. This is after pressure from people who have been harassed and sites getting put on spam block lists etc.

Re:a world we've been warning about for decades

[AntronArgaiv]

The phone number requirement when signing up for email is very annoying, but it's not there because Yahoo or whoever wants your phone number. It's there to stop abuse. It's much more work to get a new, working phone number than it is to create another email account. This is after pressure from people who have been harassed and sites getting put on spam block lists etc.

Easily resolved: I use my work phone number. Or make one up. The alleged use for it is to help you get back in to your email account if you forget your password or something. Since the email account is free, I'll just start another.

Re:a world we've been warning about for decades

[hughbar]

Actually, to be clear, that's a valid use-case and I don't mind otherwise I'll emulate Hilary and run my own mail server. My concern is requests [for example, low value on-line shopping] that do not need it, yet ask for it. In general things that go let's see how much personal data we can get from this idiot.

Re:a world we've been warning about for decades

[JohnFen]

People appear to hate the idea of the original internet: open standards with communications that were not monitized or centrally controlled.

Companies, not people. The commercialization of the internet has successfully destroyed a huge part of what made the internet great.

Re:a world we've been warning about for decades

[JohnFen]

it's not there because Yahoo or whoever wants your phone number. It's there to stop abuse.

If that's the purpose, it is a complete and total failure. Getting a new working phone number for one-time use is only slightly more difficult than getting a new email address.

The author really is paranoid

[MobyDisk]

Just because you are paranoid doesn't mean they aren't out to get you. But in this case, the author kinda is paranoid. He could use a course on web browsers and email.

The next morning, in my inbox, several spam e-mails urged me to invest in art. That was an easy one to figure out: I’d typed the name of the gallery into Google Maps.

It sounds like the author is alleging that Google gave his email address and marketing information to spammers. Is that true? Considering I have a gmail account that receives no spam at all, I think a more believable explanation is that he dropped his business card into a box somewhere, or signed-up on a list. In reality, 100% of my spam comes to the email address I have registered to my domain. My personal email gets nothing because I don't give it out.

Some people receive almost no spam. Other people get a 200:1 ratio of spam to real emails. Having done tech support, I can tell you by talking to someone for 5 minutes how much spam they get. Do they click on ads? Do they sign-up for stuff and give out their email? Do they play the lottery? Then they are in the high spam category. I bet a reporter is one of those people who gives out his contact information to absolutely everyone.

Another simple one to trace was the stream of invitations to drug and alcohol rehab centers that I’d been getting ever since I’d consulted an online calendar of Los Angeles–area Alcoholics Anonymous meetings. Since membership in AA is supposed to be confidential, these emails irked me.

Unless he created a dedicated email address specifically for the AA membership, he has no evidence of this. Again, more likely, he enaged in networking.

I don't even want to consider his example where his bluetooth somethingorother was transcribing his words and turning that into spam. That one is technically possible, but we just aren't there... yet.

With those complaints registered, many of the anecdotes in the story do make sense. A Google search triggered targeted ads on YouTube. Well yeah, Google owns both sites. This is one of the reasons people feared Google Plus: it was just *too* well integrated. I am just surprised that this is news to people at all. What do you think is in that 35 page license you clicked "accept" to in order to play that free Facebook game? Why do you think that flashlight app needs access to your contact list and the internet?

Re:The author really is paranoid

[Sycraft-fu]

Also the spam thing would require Google to sell your information, which is very much what Google doesn't like to do. What they know about people and their ability to gather it is their value, and they hold on to it jealously. They want companies to sell ads through them, they are not interested in handing out your info so people can advertise to you directly and cut them out of the loop.

Everyone I know has a G-mail account (no surprise, they are common with tech users) and none of them experience anything like this. While it is still all anecdotal, it is a lot more data points than one crazy guy, who has questionable data security practices.

Re:The author really is paranoid

[pr0t0]

Hmm. I don't know.

Ad networks, tracking, cookies, etc, allow even disparate ad companies to deduce information about an individual user without having to resort to the "sell your information to spammers" mantra. Google doesn't sell your information to spammers, they instead provide detailed demographic information for better ad targeting. So you add that data to referring URL information on sites that track user movements across the web, the cookies created at the various sites, etc; and you have a pretty good idea of who a person is and what their interests, habits, and proclivities are. There's no doubt that Google has this information, and they likely aren't the only ones. Do a search on something like "how can I better target my advertising online" and behold the cesspool that we've built.

The issue's not whether you're paranoid,... the issue is whether you're paranoid enough.

BTW - uMatrix reports that Slashdot works with the following advertising/tracking networks: Google Analytics, Google Ad Services, Google Tag Services, RPX Now/Janrain, and Taboola. There's also ntv.io, I'm unable to quickly find what that is.

Re:The author really is paranoid

[caseih]

Yeah I agree.

Of course his bluetooth thing didn't intercept the word, walnuts, and then try to advertise it to him later. But the way we're heading, technology is rapidly enabling that kind of thing to actually happen.

What today is, or yesterday was, a conspiracy theory spouted by those crazy people we all know, tomorrow becomes reality. Like the example of TVs watching people back. Okay we're not there yet, but TVs are listening in a way. Maybe the crazy conspiracy theorists were more reasonable than we thought.

Re:The author really is paranoid

[mwaaaa33]

The most creepy thing that happened to me was this:
I was searching for a new job, I applied for one and would like to know more about the company. I wanted to look at the employees at linkedin, so I needed a profile.
I knew linkedin has a very bad reputation, so I created a new fake email to use for signing up so they could not harvest my address book etc.

At the time I had to take a "Alchohol and responsibility" course mandated by the state because I was caught with a 0.52 promille one morning where 0.5 was the maxium allowed limit.
Some time went by and I dont remember why, but I looked up myself on linkedin- and there on my profile was a box with "People who looked at X also frequently looks at Y"
In that box there was ONE person, the women that was giving the "alchohol and responsibily" courses - her title was "Alcohol and responsibility teacher in MYHOMETOWN"

FUCK!
I used a fresh created gmail account, I did not install any "apps"-did not give it any information besides my name. That was really creepy and I am never touching linkedin again!

Re:The author really is paranoid

[swillden]

Google doesn't sell your information to spammers, they instead provide detailed demographic information for better ad targeting.

Google doesn't provide detailed demographic information. Advertisers can provide some targeting information in their requests, but Google mostly serves ads to the people it believes might be interested in those ads. If you want to see how this works, sign up for an AdWords account and take a look at what you can do as an advertiser.

Re:The author really is paranoid

[green is the enemy]

This long article is worth a read to the end. The author acknowledges the possibility that his anecdotes are just the results of coincidences or him networking, like you suggested. The article is actually humorous and designed to make people think about the direction our society is heading. His anecdotes about the visit to the NSA data center, the gun show, the tire shop, the hot springs are all well written. This article is by no means a list of complaints, like you suggest. He makes fun of people that are truly paranoid (seemingly to the point of insanity), while raising some unsettling thoughts as a side-effect.

"I’d bumped into six or seven times"

[AHuxley]

With GPS, facial recognition, voice prints. Everything that the US/UK gov and mil used to have in the 1970's~90's is now at a consumer level.
The "number into his smartphone’s address book" is all part of the free social media experience.
The "William Binney, a government whistle-blower and former top NSA cryptologist, the answer was simple: almost everything, today, tomorrow, and for decades to come." should be clear to most readers.
The "Its employees dealt with us in an upbeat, tightly scripted manner that appeared to stem from their awareness of several cameras angled toward the service counter." is just the expanded 'chat down' program that all tourists and travellers now face :)

closed source software

[Gravis Zero]

if you use closed source software then there is no way of knowing what your handheld computer is actually doing without going to extreme measures.

will they ever learn? nope.

Re:closed source software

[AHuxley]

Yes copy the phone number down on a note pad (paper and pen), copy it to a Rolodex like device at home.
Use a desktop computer with Linux to store, sort and manage contacts. Most distros do not phone home unless they offer that as a service or a user wants that service.
The doing part surround the "had probably triggered the program that placed his full name and photo on my page" would be facial recognition gold to city, state, federal and foreign intelligence services.

Re:closed source software

[Barlo_Mung_42]

If you use open source software then there is still no way (for the average user) of knowing what your computer is doing without going to extreme (for them) measures.

Re:closed source software

[JohnFen]

Open source is certainly no panacea. The advantage of it to people who aren't into examining the source code themselves is that there are more skeptical eyes that do examine it than there are with closed-source software (the number of such eyes on closed-source is zero).

So, on this point, open source is more trustworthy than closed, but saying that is not to say that open source is entirely trustworthy.

Re:Facebook knows that I like boobs!

[techno-vampire]

Think of it this way: what makes a single "mature" depends on who's looking. For a teen, it's anybody over 20. For a twenty-something, it's somebody in their mid-30s. For a senior citizen, it's somebody around their own age.

No expectation of privacy if you use facebook

[JoeyRox]

That's like keeping your front door wide-open and putting a sign in your yard that reads 'Steal my shit' then getting mad when you're robbed.

Re:No expectation of privacy if you use facebook

[houghi]

The thing is that the people who sold the sign told the buyer that it said something different and even where the first sign said "Go away" over time they have just changed the sign on your door.

AdBlock, NoScript, etc?

[mister_playboy]

It does not require esoteric knowledge to prevent some of the "coincidences" the article discusses. Block ads, block third-party cookies, refuse unnecessary scripts... those actions will actually prevent some of this from happening and the authour is negligent to not mention them.

Going to visit the NSA data center, in contrast, accomplishes jackshit.

Comment removed

[account_deleted]

Comment removed based on user account deletion

Paranoid About Your Privacy?

[Greyfox]

We have several drugs for paranoia that you might be interested in!

Don't want to have your information collected, don't use Facebook. I mean seriously, what the fuck is wrong with you? Also, don't let Google or anyone else store a permanent cookie on you, don't stay logged in, don't keep a personal account on the search engine you use. For starters. Also don't use a web-based E-Mail service like gmail and encrypt all your E-mails fanatically. At this point the number of people willing to talk to you will be pretty small, which will make it much easier to not show up in social networks.

For bonus points, pull the battery out of your phone when you're not using it.

Even after all that, you probably won't be a freaking ghost, but at least you'll be making the few guys who know about you work for it.

Re:- JEW - weapons -

[ColdWetDog]

We have already been far more than chipped by the nano chips in chemtrails. That is what 'morgellons' is. Morgellons has been proven in study, it is not just on patient's skin, those with the fibers coming out of their skin, their bodies are rejecting the fibers. The chemtrail nano chips self assemble in to fiber optics inside of us./p>

Did you mean Midochlorians?

Who gets spam these days?

[Berkyjay]

Except maybe people still using Hotmail or Yahoo Mail. I use Gmail exclusively and the only time I see spam is when I check the spam folder for emails accidentally getting put in there.

Re:Who gets spam these days?

[Bing Tsher E]

I use pop.gmail.com exclusively. Is there still a web interface to gmail? I wouldn't know.

Re:Who gets spam these days?

[jez9999]

On the rare occasion I look at my Gmail spam folder, I almost always see one or two false positives in there, even though I always mark then as Not Spam. I'm pretty glad my main email provider is my own server.

Re:Who gets spam these days?

[CronoCloud]

POP? Why not IMAP?

AdBlock warned me the site uses targeted ads

[AndyKron]

I clicked on the link, and AdBlock warned me the site uses targeted ads. LOL. Or maybe not LOL.

Easy fix

[Anonymous Coward]

We could all benefit from a slick-implemented AI "noise" bot.

It runs plausible searches and emails from your Google account: AA meetings, cancer support, communist party meetings, tea party movement meetings, etc.

Done at a reasonable human-speed rate to make it believable to Google.

I don't code, but if someone wants to do this right (open source) I pledge $50 for the kickstarter right now.

What could possibly go wrong?

adamperry@gmail

Re:AdBlock+ = inferior & 'souled-out' vs. host

[Anonymous Coward]

Huh, it turns out the article is right. Someone typed the word "AdBlock" and suddenly they are spammed with some ad about a "hosts file engine". That is creepy.

Puhlease

[linuxguy]

You are paranoid about security and have a Facebook account? You bring shame to Paranoid schizophrenics everywhere. Please join your local chapter of technologically illiterate anonymous.

On a more serious note. I know people who are convinced that Navy seals sit in the trees outside their house. You are halfway there. Get help before it is too late.

First run-in

[Tablizer]

My first run-in with online privacy happened in the late 1990's when a persistent troll found personal info on me and broadcast it all over discussion boards in an attempt to embarrass me into silence.

I realized after the "breach" it's easy to leave inadvertent clues. Somebody with enough patience and persistence can put these clues together to dig around in search engines for personal info and your online trail.

And there are plenty of freaks out there who make the Interwebs their sadism engine. It's their only "power" in life.

I'm much more careful about "crossing topics" now. For example, if I'm on a board about pets, I don't talk about IT and vice versa. But, that's probably still not enough as one tends have certain phrasing patterns that leave sufficient clues for "statistical linking". Most trolls probably don't go that far or are not smart enough, but you never know. They may have a script-buddy to barter for zombie PC time or something.

Re:I'm sane in a crazy world then: Proof? apk

[bigfinger76]

So surprising to see APK here...

Consent

[Etherwalk]

That's like keeping your front door wide-open and putting a sign in your yard that reads 'Steal my shit' then getting mad when you're robbed.

No it's not. The sign provides consent.

Stop Watching Us!

[ememisya]

We're not watching you...
Who? Us? Over here!?! Stop watching us! Hello, who are you and why are you looking at me? Stop it! Stop listening, wait, who are those guys? Will you all just stop it? STOOOOP! http://i.imgur.com/697eU.gif

Meanwhile...

No seriously though, you should not trust people who are monitoring you without your consent, but you should trust that whoever has been is no longer doing so.
Just be like everyone else, join a team, join a group of people. Then those who monitor you can know that you are clearly part of that team and monitor you as a part of the whole. Never stand out, just stay under the radar, avoid all attention, and do your job. Nope, nooooo! Nooooo! Stop it! Good. Who are we? We don't exist. There's no one watching you, you're being crazy. Shhhhhhh get back to work. Will you just get back to work?
Smile :) There there, see I know you could do it. Who's a good employee? *rasberries* hahaha You're a good employee. puts headset down
*clicks "Next Misbehaving Worker"* Hey there. We're not watching you.

Meanwhile...

Oh look, somebody just searched for "pitcher of water", display pitcher ads.
Bob you won't believe how amazing these online ads have become. I wrote down "picture of water" and it immediately knew I got no water pitchers in my house.

Meanwhile...

Hey Jeff, check this out. The terrorist muslim woman we've been monitoring has naked pics on her phone. Hahaha, nice tits, "Hey Steve! Check out the tits on the muslim girl!" "Oh wow, I'm gonna get some coffee." *rolls eyes*

Meanwhile...

According to the algorithm people care most about Hillary this election season. Next most popular trend is lupus. We should put that on the ads, "Hillary Clinton will fight lupus!"

Meanwhile back on earth...

Can I have some priva... pri ... p ... *sigh*...

Re:Stop Watching Us!

[MrKaos]

Nice - Mod parent funny, or perhaps ironic, sad maybe!

no problem

[n3r0.m4dski11z]

Dont use a smart phone, don't use google products, and dont use social media.

I guess that's what passes for "off the grid" these days. Not hard.

Re:no problem

[0123456]

Dont use a smart phone, don't use google products, and dont use social media.

Good God, man! How could I survive without my daily dose of mildly amusing cat pictures?

Re:no problem

[Opportunist]

Wrong. Use them. And use them to your advantage. Feed them information you want the world to hear about you. True? Why would it have to be true? Be creative!

Re:no problem

[MrKaos]

My pseudonymity aches in agreement.

Re:"my Facebook page"

[JMJimmy]

I have a facebook page too - it's not real but I have one.

Re:No such thing as privacy these days

[n3r0.m4dski11z]

"No smartphone, no facebook, no google, no nothing. Go live in some cabin in the woods without electricity."

Those are a few horrible fads and hardly constitute a regression from civilized society. There was a time when putting your real name on-line would get you laughed off of slashdot. sad.

Poison the Well

[Anonymous Coward]

Whenever I read one of these articles about how tiny fragments of information are gathered and assembled into a personal profile I'm struck by how much is based on so little. They make a lot of assumptions about the veracity of these little details that they collect. Thins makes me wonder if active and deliberated injection of miss information could serve as an effective defense mechanism.

If course, you'd have to be sure that the false picture you paint is a favorable one. And that the resulting ad targeting will come in a fairly innocuous form. You are going to get blasted with ads regardless of what you do.. Do you want them to be relevant (attention getting, so you are constantly telling yourself, "No, no, no") or completely irrelevant to you (more annoying, but soon more easily ignored).

Perhaps a browser plugin could be developed that does occasional random searches in the background. Or maybe something that clicks on random ads in a hidden browser session (just make sure you have damn good sandboxing, given the propensity for drive-by browser exploits to lurk behind ad-bait.) Similar things could be done with random email and text messages between users of a misinfo application. I've often thought it would be fun to make a browser plugin that connects to a peer-to-peer network and swaps tracking cookies with other browsers. You'd have to make sure to exchange only cookies from domains know to be associated with tracking and advertising, and not anything that may have login of other confidential data. This would have to be done carefully; but I think it could be done.

The effects would be hilarious. When you op-out of tracking you merely deny them some of the data (and maybe flag yourself as a different kind of datapoint...). But if you intentionally poison the well in a way that is difficult to distinguish from legitimate data then you increase expenses while significantly decreasing value of the whole system, as well as sow doubt one whatever remains after their attempts to filter out interference.

Limiting your exposure by trying to limit what information can be learned about you will only go so far. You will never eliminate all of it. After you reduce it by 95% there is still a hellofalot that can be gleaned from the remaining 5%. But if that 5% can't be disentangled from 95% bogus information then it would be a real thorn-in-the-side of those trying to build consumer profiles of every member of the population. I think that this is the new frontier in privacy protection. Get a few Cryptonomicon-minded people thinking about this and imagine what they could come up with.

(Posted as AC for obvious reasons.)

Re:Poison the Well

[AHuxley]

Re AC and the "Perhaps a browser plugin could be developed that does occasional random searches in the background."
trackmenot https://cs.nyu.edu/trackmenot/ "... actual web searches, lost in a cloud of false leads"

Re:Poison the Well

[Opportunist]

Way ahead of you. If you google my name, you will notice that I have accomplished a lot. Most of it is hard to verify (I didn't give myself a Nobel Prize, because that could be debunked) but I made sure that you will come up with me being one of the hottest things in IT security. And I know everyone that matters. Of course all this can only be found on pages I own (sometimes via proxy), and they only link to each other in a circle jerk kinda way, but if you data mine me, getting bogus information is what you deserve.

You can use the total surveillance to your advantage. Just grin into every cam and wear your favorite mask.

know your actions and anticipate the consequences.

[unami]

allowing google maps to link search data with your account (were you logged in as well?)? giving your phone number to a stranger who uploads his contact data to facebook. using google and probably not even a private browser window for searches. even using facebook in the first place. i'd call that rather naÃve, using all these services without paying money for them and expecting to not give some data back in exchange.

Android Marshmallow

[bradley13]

I just updated to Marshmallow, where you can see and control app privileges. I went through the apps and disallowed anything they didn't need. Almost every app had the right to look at my contacts. Music apps, map apps, fitness apps - everything. None of them need this access, but they are all selling it. Hopefully, those days are now over...

Re:I'm sane in a crazy world then: Proof? apk

[Ash-Fox]

FREE & not 'souled-out' to advertisers + adds speed, security & reliability & does FAR more w/ FAR less more efficiently vs. redundant browser addons & locally installed DNS servers @ home + fixes DNS' many security issues!

If you look at the regular Linux desktop, a DNS server is already provided (usually powerdns) in forwarding mode by default in most major distros, so there isn't really any worse efficiency involved in those circumstances when modifying the configuration. Additionally, they're more efficient than hosts files when blocking entire domains, since you don't need to create over a TB of text file to generate every single possible subdomain combintion (which apparently sticks in your RAM according to you) for just one domain.

It SPEEDS YOU UP 2 ways (adblocking + locally cached in RAM favorites placed @ the TOP of hosts for fastest resolution speed vs. remote DNS also aiding reliability) vs. other "so-called security 'solutions'" SLOWING YOU!

My DNS daemon running on my router is more efficient. It returns NXDOMAIN for blocked domains, my browser doesn't even attempt to establish a TCP connection to an IP address, unlike when you use hosts files. This protects an entire network of computers and doesn't require any configuration of any individual systems to make it work either. The faster NXDOMAIN responses than resolution means that it is faster than without too.

Blocking an entire domain (or subdomain) is as simple as this line in Bind 9:

zone "abcstats.com" { type master; file "/dev/null"; };

Bind errors loading the zone, because it's not a valid zone file, effecively using next to no memory for a doman now considered invalid.

Never had that happen

[AntronArgaiv]

Specifically: I use Google and Gmail. I have *never* received spam emails related to searches I've done on Google. And I do a *lot* of Google searches.

an âoeeye in the skyâ could read my lic

[wiredog]

Nope. The best orbiting telescopes have a ground resolution in low earth orbit of about 5 cm. That's looking straight down in early morning when the atmosphere is least disturbed. Reading a license plate would require higher resolution and looking through much more atmosphere.

Re:"my Facebook page"

[AntronArgaiv]

I have a facebook page too - it's not real but I have one.

I have three.

There's very little accurate information on any of them.

I was always worried that the feds

[Grand Facade]

I was always worried that the feds would tie all their digital resources together and put the smackdown on "us".

I now realize that would ensnare "those that matter" so that will never happen.

Now the private sector has made marketing the winner of that race.

Thank you Google and all the cell phone "helper" apps that map out our every move.

I remember when Google's motto gave "us" the impression evil was not on the agenda.

Seems that some folks have a different definition of evil!

The microscope shoved up my butt is getting bigger, just like boiling a frog.

Android

[BitZtream]

Two things:

1) You're an idiot. Most of what you're talking about is simple tracking cookies based on your browsing habits, you're just not aware of how easy it is to track you across what seems like unrelated sites ... guess what, ITS FACEBOOK YOU FUCKING MORON. What do you think Like buttons ACTUALLY do? They aren't there so you can Like them, they are there so Facebook knows EVERYTHING YOU'VE DONE.

2) Perhaps you should stop using an Android device.

Everything mentioned in the article can be explained by an android device with its shitty permissions stealing information. And it certainly notices when its near other android devices and can easily report that back.

This IS already happening with rogue apps. The question simply becomes, are you using one of those apps?

I say Android specifically because of its all-or-nothing approach to permissions that means people give apps permissions they wouldn't normally because thats the only way they can use the app at all, versus iOS where you simply deny permission to that resource and unless the app 100% depends on THAT resource, you will get rejected from the app store if you don't function without that resource. I.E. No forcing users to allow you to track them in your app that has no reason to track them.

Does not make sense to me.

[LWATCDR]

""One night the previous summer, I’d driven to meet a friend at an art gallery in Hollywood, my first visit to a gallery in years. The next morning, in my inbox, several spam e-mails urged me to invest in art. That was an easy one to figure out: I’d typed the name of the gallery into Google Maps."
That does not make a lot of sense. If you started to see ads in Gmail about art then it makes sense. Getting spam does not. Google does not make money on email spam and they would not sell your name to a list. Now if you signed in at the gallery and put down your email address that would make sense.
"“People You May Know,” of a California musician whom I’d bumped into six or seven times at AA meetings in a private home. In accordance with AA custom, he had never told me his last name nor inquired about mine. "
You have your phone number in facebook? Even if you do this again does not make a lot of sense. Apple does no share phonebook data with facebook and Google and Facebook do not share data.
Oh and the rant about AA. Oh well.
Sorry but nothing to see here move along.

It Is Not Private

[JimSadler]

When you deal with another person or a business privacy is not really in play. My only objection to anyone deeply studying me is that all other people are not deeply studied. My feeling is that if all people were studied in depth I might look pretty darned good compared to many others. The real issue is lack of equality in data collection and analysis. Further is is all too easy to fool a data mining effort. One might ask Google Maps to give you directions to the local archdiocese or to every major church in the area. Then you might collect addresses and driving directions to every stock brokerage in your area. Then drop some well known names in your emails such as governors with meetings at specific sites and dates and driving directions. One might also make several inquiries into buying the most expensive Mercedes or top of the line Lincolns. You might want to make inquiries about yachts as well. The likely effect is that someone out there may think you buy lots of expensive items and they may butter you up with some gifts designed as incentives. How about yacking about your scholarship fund which does not really exist. Confuse the living daylights out of data mining.

Re: - JEW - weapons -

[Lazere]

Fair enough, but answer me this one question. Are you a chatbot that ran into a conspiracy site and went nuts?

Re:No such thing as privacy these days

[JohnFen]

That's far too black and white. Nearly nobody wants 100% privacy, and it's entirely possible to use a smartphone while maintaining good control over who gets to learn what about you. At least for Android, where you can avoid Google entirely if you wish, and you can install a firewall to prevent applications from talking to the outside world.

Re:No such thing as privacy these days

[JohnFen]

Hell, I still laugh at people who use their real names online.

Re:Facebook knows that I like boobs!

[JohnFen]

But one solid thing the internet has taught me: "teen" usually means someone aged 20-30.

Re:Developers are under no obligation

[JohnFen]

I don't see where anybody said developers do have such an obligation.

However, the point about closed source is correct. I support the right of developers to develop according to their own tastes, and I equally engage in my own right to avoid closed source software to the greatest degree that I can.

Privacy is over. Get used to it.

[thesandtiger]

There really isn't any such thing as privacy at this point, just "not being worth bothering to look up."

Any data store worth worrying about has probably been compromised. It's currently fairly easy to identify and then get information you want about any given individual, and as tech advances it's going to become absolutely trivial. Even moreso, new tech will come along making some data that are currently very difficult to obtain easy and then trivial.

You don't have privacy now, you don't even have anonymity. And you probably don't even have "not being worth looking up" because someone SOMEWHERE is probably curious enough about you to at least google you or something.

The best course of action, IMO, is to embrace that knowledge and figure out ways to minimize the damage that can be done to you if someone does violate what you imagine is your "privacy." There's no good solution to keeping things ACTUALLY private, but there are plenty of good solutions for minimizing damage of important or personal information being freely available.

Free Phone Apps!

[0xG]

Why do "free" apps require access to your address book?
You figure it out...

Problem is, other people (like IT sales monkeys) have my contact information in their address books.
And they ignorantly use "free" apps.

Result: I get targeted spam.

Re:Your phone contacts are stored in your email

[moeinvt]

What if other people have my info in their phone and THEY granted Facebook access to their contacts? Facebook could then target both of us in an attempt to get us to connect. In that case, my only fault would be that I gave someone my contact info.
I have a FB-specific e-mail address that nobody else knows and I don't use phone apps that demand too much access to my info.

We noticed that you have an Ad blocker

[ubergeek65536]

Do they see the irony of publishing an article about protecting privacy only to ask you to disable your ad blocker?

It's the location data

[WOOFYGOOFY]

Went to a large, well-known building complex, Place X, in a large metro area Metro Y which sells a specific type of good (vague enough for you?). Previously had never expressed interest in this type of good. Had not sent or received email / text / FB, / Twitter nothing not even Googled it or Mapquested it since I know where to find this large complex as does everyone else who lives in that Metro Y area.

No reason at all I should have generated any digital data around my spontaneous decision to *walk left three blocks and pop into very large Place X in Metro Y*. Not even a phone call just before or during or just after my visit. Just a person walking with their phone.

  Next day, WHAM, 10,000 ads all over Google in my inbox in my spam box about this type of good.

They know who you are, where you are, why (they believe) you are there whether it's online, online using a VPN, probably online using Tor or just walking around. I take that as my reality and have for a few years now.

I have repeatedly and seriously considered giving up my tracking device, er I mean phone. Tried to revert to an earlier technology but it was pre e-911 ability and so my carrier cannot connect it to their (or any) system any longer.

I may still pull the trigger on this dump the phone idea.

I want Congress to step in here and do for us what the EU does for their citizens and more. After all, we're the home of the free, right? I don't feel free when I am tracked constantly. I feel surveilled, exploited and I feel my autonomy, privacy and self-determination compromised by strangers whose current and future motives are unknown to me .

Re:It's the location data

[CimmerianX]

I spent the 1st 30 years of my life without a phone in my pocket and did just fine. The only reason I have one know is because my 'job' forces me to carry one.

dont forget

[CimmerianX]

Don't forget that no matter how careful you are with your privacy, not using google services, not using facebook, not posting photos, not having an online social media presense, all it takes is someone you know to save your contact info on their phone and sync it with google, now they have your confirmed email, name, number, and address. All it takes is 1 'friend' to upload a photo with you in it to facebook and tag your face with a name/email.... now facebook has you too. And so on....

You can control your own info, but you can't force everyone else you know to do the same.

When I'm 60, I'm retiring to a cabin ala Walden. Fuck this technology.

Re:dont forget

[Ash-Fox]

When I'm 60, I'm retiring to a cabin ala Walden. Fuck this technology.

Uploading this information to Facebook, Google+ and VK for you.

Re:dont forget

[CimmerianX]

touche

Re:DNS security, speed & power issues hosts be

[Ash-Fox]

Kaminsky redirect poisoning - 99.999% of ISP DNS aren't patched vs. it.

Irrelevant when you don't use forwarding rules in your DNS server configuration.

Open DNS resolvers (not OpenDNS) get exploited by malware A LOT!

Botnets, sure.

Rogue DNS servers (even in routers not just system IP stack settings).

What I'm suggesting isn't a rogue DNS server either.

* Hosts w/ favs you hardcode in 'em AVOIDS ALL THOSE DNS SECURITY ISSUES ABOVE

So does the DNS daemon in my household.

IT RESOLVES FAR FASTER THAN CALLING TO REMOTE DNS SERVERS

My DNS daemon is local on the network which has certain zone files for resolving certain hosts. Therefore it is 'far faster' than remote DNS servers too.

Hosts combined w/ OpenDNS compliment one other.

In my own experience in Europe, OpenDNS seems to be often slower at resolving than my own DNS daemons. Likely because according to my traceroute, it goes through four countries before I hit their server.

The rest of my hosts files' entries are 3,801,410++ blocked entries vs. malware & ads of many kinds.

My blacklisted domains shows:

$ wc -l /etc/bind/blacklist
13736 /etc/bind/blacklist

(also, look, I can split things up across multiple files for organisational purposes)

Most of those entries include all the subdomains of a given known malicious domain, so no duplicate entries needed to filter out various subdomains.

> P.S.=> Local DNS eats more cpu, RAM, & I/O

To do what I do with my DNS server, it would take up more CPU, RAM, I/O and disk space with a hosts file and the work would have to be duplicated across each system. However, not each system in my household can even do hosts. Such as the game consoles, tablets and mobile phones. So, even if I was doing /just/ what you were doing, it would not be sufficient.

You are paranoid

[GuB-42]

According to the author, the only real consequences of his relatively careless use of the internet are that he received targeted ads that could have been embarrassing in circumstances that didn't occur and he knows the real name of guy he met in person and exchanged personal phone numbers with... how frightening.
If you worry about such things you are already a bit paranoid. And if you are paranoid about this but not about your privacy, then sure you are crazy. Not because you are not paranoid enough, but because you are inconsistent.